BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Canterbury City Council Bill (By Order)

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Lords amendments to be considered on Tuesday 22 January.

Leeds City Council Bill (By Order)

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Lords amendments to be considered on Tuesday 22 January.

Nottingham City Council Bill (By Order)

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Lords amendments to be considered on Tuesday 22 January.

Reading Borough Council Bill (By Order)

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Lords amendments to be considered on Tuesday 22 January.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 22 January (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Vascular Disease (England)

Neil Carmichael: What recent assessment he has made of the provision of treatment for vascular disease in England.

Jeremy Hunt: Despite the huge improvements that have been made over the last decade in the outcomes for people with cardiovascular disease, it is still one of the biggest killers in England and the largest cause of disability. That is why we are developing a CVD outcomes strategy, which will set out where there is scope to make further improvements in patient outcomes in this area.

Neil Carmichael: I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on vascular disease, which recently produced a report highlighting the need for early diagnosis and intervention, and the additional risks associated with obesity and diabetes. Is the Secretary of State willing to meet me and some of my colleagues to consider how we can improve outcomes for sufferers of vascular disease?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent work with the all-party group and for the group’s constructive response to our consultation on the outcomes strategy. I am more than happy to meet him and other representatives of the all-party group. With an ageing population and rising levels of obesity, we cannot be complacent about cardiovascular disease and have much to do.

Helen Jones: The Prime Minister promised before the election that there would be no reconfigurations or closures unless there was clinical and local support. Why then has the Secretary of State decided to break up the existing vascular network centred on Warrington hospital, meaning that emergency patients face a trip to Chester by ambulance, when this has neither clinical support nor support in the local community? When did that policy change, or was it just an election promise that the Conservatives never intended to keep?

Jeremy Hunt: We believe in the clinical networks, including the network for cardiovascular disease. We have increased the funding for those networks by 27%. However, we want them to include mental health and maternity services. We think that it would be wrong to do what the Labour party wants, which is to concentrate that funding on cardiovascular disease and cancer, and deprive of the clear benefits of such networks the 700,000 women who give birth on the NHS every year and the nearly 1 million people who will be diagnosed with dementia.

Tim Farron: Given that the majority of vascular interventions are acute in nature, following trauma or cardiac episodes, is it not reckless for NHS Lancashire and NHS Cumbria to be talking about moving vascular services away from the Morecambe bay area, meaning that people from the south lakes and north Cumbria will have to travel as far as Preston, Blackburn or Carlisle to receive treatment? Will the Secretary of State meet me, other local MPs and local consultants to discuss how we can put the matter right for local people?

Jeremy Hunt: We are very keen to ensure that all reconfigurations of services have strong local, clinical support. We are making good progress in this area. There is always a trade-off between access, which I recognise is extremely important in a rural constituency
	such as the hon. Gentleman’s, and the centralisation of services, which sometimes leads to better clinical outcomes. I am happy to arrange for him to meet me or one of my colleagues to discuss his concerns in more detail.

Keith Vaz: Those with diabetes, such as myself, are five times more likely to get cardiovascular diseases. Last year’s National Audit Office report indicated that 1 million diabetics did not get their nine checks. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that those checks are made available to all diabetic patients?

Jeremy Hunt: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his campaigning work for people with diabetes, and I am aware that there are 24,000 premature deaths every year because we are not as good as we need to be at tackling the disease. It is shocking that only half those with diabetes are getting the full set of nine checks that everyone with diabetes should be getting every year, and when we publish the cardiovascular disease outcomes strategy—which I hope will be in spring—I hope we will address some of his concerns about how we can do a better job for diabetes sufferers.

Jim Shannon: Deep vein thrombosis is the leading direct cause of maternal deaths across the United Kingdom. Will the Minister consider interaction with the regional assemblies, including the Northern Ireland Assembly, to agree a UK strategy to address that issue?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to look into the issue of DVT and it should be included in our CVD outcomes strategy. Just as we will look at diabetes, I will ensure that we also consider how we might be able to help on DVT.

Hospital Waiting Times (England)

David Davies: What recent steps he has taken to reduce hospital waiting times in England.

Daniel Poulter: Latest figures for October 2012 show that 70,000 fewer patients are waiting longer than 18 weeks than at the last election. The Government’s mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board makes timely access to services a priority.

David Davies: Those figures compare extremely well with those in Wales, where most patients are waiting for 26 weeks, and many for 36 weeks. Would the Minister be willing to share some advice on how to get waiting lists down with his counterparts in Wales, and perhaps discuss with them why patients wait so much less time in the Conservative NHS in England than in the socialist NHS in Wales?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is right to highlight key differences between the NHS in England and in Wales. The Labour-run Assembly in Wales is cutting funding by around 8%, which will—of course—impact on the quality of care available to patients and other front-line services. At the same time, in England we are ensuring that we continue to invest, with £12.5 billion in the NHS during the lifetime of this Parliament. I would be happy
	to point that out to colleagues in Wales and the Welsh Assembly, and to make the point that it is the Conservatives and the coalition Government who deliver better patient care through investing in the NHS.

Julie Hilling: Will the Minister tell the House how many NHS trusts failed to meet the accident and emergency target of 95% of people being seen within four hours last week? When was the last time that target was met nationally?

Daniel Poulter: I am happy to inform the hon. Lady that we are meeting the 95% target nationally for the A and E wait. On the most recent figures available, 96% of patients were seen within that period—96 out of every 100 patients are seen within four hours in A and E. The key difference between this Government and the last Labour Government is that we trust clinicians to ensure that they prioritise those patients in greatest need ahead of purely meeting targets and ticking boxes.

Andy Burnham: As winter bites, the NHS faces its toughest time of year, but there is mounting evidence that the Secretary of State has left it unprepared. For 105 of his 133 days in office, the Government have missed their own A and E target for major A and Es. Last week, for the first time, the figure fell below 90%. Right now in A and Es up and down England, ambulances are stuck in queues outside, patients are on trolleys in corridors, and people are waiting to be seen for hours on end. Does the Minister accept that there is a growing crisis in our A and Es, and if he does, what is he doing about it?

Daniel Poulter: The right hon. Gentleman is good at putting across figures based on brief snapshots in the year. We know that on an annual basis we are meeting the target, and that 96% of patients are being seen on time in A and Es. We have made allowances for winter pressures—which we know are always difficult during the flu season every year—and we have put aside £330 million to ensure that we support the NHS during those winter pressures. Let me make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that it is wrong to try and distort figures based on outcomes from a snapshot of just a few days or a week. It is important to put across the clear picture, which is that the Government are meeting targets in the NHS and patients are being treated in a much more timely manner than under the previous Government.

Andy Burnham: I suggest to the Minister that he needs to get out on the ground in the NHS a bit more. The figures I gave him were for major A and Es. If he got out more, he would realise that his complacency—which we have just seen at the Dispatch Box—is not justified. Let us look at Milton Keynes, which was identified by the Care Quality Commission as one of the 17 understaffed hospitals, and where last week just 72% of patients were seen within four hours. Milton Keynes is one of 15 trusts in England where A and E performance plummeted below 80%. These are the kind of figures that we have not seen in the NHS since the bad old days of the mid-1990s. Ministers like to blame nurses, but it is time they started accepting some responsibility. Will the Minister today ensure that all A and Es in England have enough staff to get safely through the winter?

Daniel Poulter: I reassure hon. Members that, unlike any Member on the Opposition Front Bench, I still work in the NHS every week and I ensure that I see what happens on the ground. That cannot be said of any Front-Bench Opposition Member. We on this side of the House have Ministers who are in touch with what is happening in the NHS on the ground. On A and E waits, we are trusting clinicians to exercise their judgment, which is why we now have a 95% target. We are ensuring—and the statistics show—that we are meeting that target on an annual basis. Patients are being treated in a timely manner. Furthermore, we have put in £330 million to deal with winter pressures. It is wrong of the right hon. Gentleman to try and mislead the House in this way—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”]—and use figures from a snapshot in time, rather than in a generality, which would indicate—

Mr Speaker: Order. Sorry, the Minister needs to withdraw the suggestion that anybody tried to mislead the House. That simply needs to be withdrawn; that is all.

Daniel Poulter: Indeed. I do withdraw that comment, Mr Speaker, and I apologise for saying that there was any deliberate attempt to mislead the House at all. I was simply pointing out the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is highlighting a snapshot in time—

Mr Speaker: No, no. Order. I must say to the Minister that when a retraction is required, that is what is required and that is all that is required. We move on.

Leeds Children’s Hospital (Heart Surgery Unit)

Andrew Percy: What representations he has received from clinicians in Yorkshire and the Humber on the decision to close the children’s heart surgery unit at Leeds children’s hospital.

Jeremy Hunt: I know that some are disappointed at the decision by the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts and want to see children’s congenital heart surgery continue at their local hospitals. However, the Safe and Sustainable review was an NHS review, independent of Government. Under the circumstances, and given that legal proceedings and a review by the independent reconfiguration panel are under way, my hon. Friend will understand that it is not appropriate for me to comment further.

Andrew Percy: One hundred and seventy clinicians from across Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire have written to express their dismay at the decision, stating that for time-critical transfers it
	“exposes a number of children to the risk of death,”
	largely because it will require transfers to Newcastle, where services are not co-located. Does that not prove that the decision does not enjoy clinical support in Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire and that it is simply not true that this has been a clinically led review?

Jeremy Hunt: I have seen the letter to which my hon. Friend refers and I understand that these are extremely complex issues. Let me reassure him that when I take my final decision, it will be on a clinically led basis. I will do that when I have received the IRP’s report, which I am due to receive by 28 March.

Kevin Barron: The independent reconfiguration panel has already visited Leeds and I understand that it will visit again before that date. If it decided that both Leeds and Newcastle ought to stay open, would that be agreed?

Jeremy Hunt: I will make my decision when I have the IRP’s final recommendation. Obviously I cannot speculate on what the final decision will be, but let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman, as I did with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), that my decision will be taken on the basis of clinical need—in other words, what will save the most lives.

Martin Vickers: I note my right hon. Friend’s comments about his final decision being based on clinical advice, but will he also give consideration to patients and families in areas that are more remote from the centre, such as my constituency? This decision causes extra strain and cost to families and will also mean that they will not go to Newcastle, and therefore Newcastle will not achieve its target number of operations.

Jeremy Hunt: I am aware of those arguments. There is always the difficult issue of access versus the benefits of clinical specialisation, but I need to wait for the IRP to report before I can give a view on how it applies in this instance.

Meg Munn: I understand the Secretary of State’s reluctance—quite rightly—to comment on the processes he is going through, but will he confirm that he expects full transparency in the review process? That means all the minutes of the JCPCT being given to the review process and none of them being redacted.

Jeremy Hunt: I do want this to be a transparent process and we will follow all the appropriate guidelines in that respect.

Mr Speaker: Order. I must say to the House that if we are to get through the questions we need shorter questions and shorter answers from now on.

Midwives

Rehman Chishti: What steps he is taking to support the recruitment and training of midwives.

Daniel Poulter: The Government are committed to ensuring that the number of midwives in training matches the needs of the birth rate. There are now over 800 more midwives working in the NHS than there were in May 2010, and a record 5,000 currently in training.

Rehman Chishti: The Oliver Fisher neonatal intensive care unit at Medway Maritime hospital in my constituency is an excellent charity that looks after approximately 900 premature and sick new-borns each year. What further midwife support will the Government give to such care units?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the excellent work done at his local unit, which receives funding from the NHS and from charitable sources. We are investing more money into training midwives, and there are now more midwives working in the NHS. It is for local commissioners to capitalise on that, and to invest in support for neonatal units.

Stephen McCabe: With births per midwife rising, maternity services being cut and newly qualified midwives unable to find a job, what on earth happened to the famous boast of the Prime Minister that he would recruit 3,000 more midwives and make their lives a lot easier?

Daniel Poulter: With respect, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should listen to my answers before he pre-prepares a statement. I just outlined clearly that in the past two years there have already been 800 more midwives working in the NHS, and there are record numbers in training thanks to the investment being made by the Government. We are delivering on making sure that we are investing in maternity and investing in high-quality care for women. We are proud to be doing that—something the previous Government failed to do.

NHS Funding Formula (Rural Areas/Elderly People)

Nigel Adams: What assessment he has made of the effect of the current NHS funding formula on rural areas with a large elderly population.

Norman Lamb: Age is the main driver of an individual’s need for health care, as reflected in recent funding formulae. This is for the NHS Commissioning Board, but the independent advisory committee recommends continuing to review the case for additional resources in rural areas, particularly as more information on community provision becomes available.

Nigel Adams: It is disappointing to hear that the NHS Commissioning Board has decided not to implement a fairer funding formula. What does the Minister suggest I say to my constituents who potentially face having services withdrawn, when, in the same region, areas such as Barnsley constituents receive almost 30% per head more in funding?

Norman Lamb: As a Member of Parliament for a rural area with an elderly community I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but allocations have to be based on solid evidence. The area where we do not have the evidence is on community services. The data will start to be collected on that and we will therefore be able to demonstrate whether community services cost more in rural areas, as I suspect they do. If that is the case, the allocation formula will be able to reflect that.

Chi Onwurah: The north-east suffers some of the worst health outcomes in the country, despite having excellent care services. On many occasions, the Government have said that they are committed to reducing health inequality, specifically
	in the north-east. Why then did Ian Dalton say that using the new advisory committee on resource allocation formula
	“on its own would have…moved resources from areas where people…have worse health outcomes to those where people have much better outcomes”.
	Does that not show that the Government have no commitment to reducing health inequalities?

Norman Lamb: I think the news on the allocations for public health budgets is actually a remarkably positive story. Every part of the country will see real-terms increases in funding for public health. This is an historic moment where we shift the emphasis away from repair to prevention of ill health. The hon. Lady’s own area will see real-terms increases. Across the country as a whole, there will be an average of 10.8% over two years real-terms increases in public health funding. I am very proud that the Government are doing that.

Patient Experience

Priti Patel: What steps he is taking to ensure that patient experience is a priority for the NHS.

Jeremy Hunt: Improving the quality of care throughout the NHS is a key priority for the Government, and one of the things we are doing to make that happen is, for the first time, asking all NHS in-patients whether they would recommend the care they received to a friend or member of their family.

Priti Patel: My constituents have consistently been let down by the failure of the last Government and a debt-ridden PCT to invest in local community health services. Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging the new clinical commissioning groups to respond to Witham’s growing population and health needs by investing in localised community health care?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to do so, and I commend my hon. Friend for her campaigning, because if we invest properly in community health services, we can allow the frail elderly, who are among the biggest users of the NHS, to stay at home happily, healthily and for much longer. That must be a key priority for us all.

Barbara Keeley: At the last Health questions, the Secretary of State told me
	“Every NHS bed is getting an extra two hours of care per week compared with the situation two years ago.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 122.]
	Quoting national average nurse-patient ratios does not help to improve the patient experience, but cutting 7,000 nurses sure does affect it. We have unsafe levels of care in 17 hospitals. Will he treat this issue a bit more seriously and do something about those unsafe levels?

Jeremy Hunt: With respect to the hon. Lady, she cannot talk about alleged cuts in the NHS while her Front-Bench team support a policy of real cuts in the NHS budget. In the last Opposition day debate, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said that he thought it was irresponsible of the Government to increase the NHS
	budget in real terms. That means he wants a real cut in the NHS budget, which would make the staffing issues to which she referred much, much worse.

Stephen Dorrell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective things we can do to improve the patient experience of health and care is to improve the co-ordination, not just between the hospital service and community-based health services, but between the NHS and social care, and to put in place the infrastructure, including the IT infrastructure, to make that real?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point—in fact, I will be giving a speech on this tomorrow—because, in the end, if it is not possible to see a full medical record of some of these frail elderly or heaviest users of the NHS going in and out of the system throughout the year, it is not possible to give them the integrated, joined-up care that they desperately need. This will be a very big priority for us.

Andrew Gwynne: One of the biggest drivers of patient experience on hospital wards is the dedication and care of the nursing staff, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said, the Care Quality Commission has identified 17 NHS hospitals that are operating with unsafe staffing levels, putting vulnerable patients and especially older people at risk. Frankly, it is the Secretary of State’s job to ensure that every NHS hospital operates with safe staffing levels, so does he now think it was a mistake to strip out almost 7,000 nursing posts from our NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: It is my job, and that is why the Government have protected the NHS budget. The hon. Gentleman’s Front-Bench team, on the other hand, want to cut it in real terms. He has to think carefully before he starts talking about all these so-called cuts, given that his shadow Health spokesman wants to cut the NHS budget in real terms. [Interruption.] That is what he said last December. I agree with the Care Quality Commission that it is totally unacceptable for hospitals to have unsafe staffing levels. The commission also said, however, that budgets and financial issues were not an excuse, because those budget pressures existed throughout the NHS and many hospitals were able to deliver excellent care despite them.

Cancer, Stroke and Heart Disease (Survival Rates)

David Morris: What steps he is taking to improve the survival rates of cancer, stroke and heart disease patients.

Jeremy Hunt: Our cancer strategy set out the ambition to save 5,000 lives by 2014-15 through earlier diagnosis, cancer screening and improved access to treatment. We are working on an outcomes strategy for cardiovascular disease.

David Morris: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how many patients have benefited from the cancer drugs fund to date?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to inform my hon. Friend that 25,000 people have benefited to date from the cancer drugs fund, which the previous Government failed to introduce. On top of that, 53,000 more people every year are being admitted for chemotherapy and 219,000 more cancer treatments are happening every year than happened in any year under the last Labour Government.

Grahame Morris: I have previously raised with the Secretary of State the opportunity cost—in terms of cost and effectiveness —of the proton beam therapy system. Given that expert opinion—in the form of the national radiotherapy advisory group—is divided, and given that the cost of the proton beam therapy system is 100 times more than other advanced radiotherapy systems that my region and others lack, why is he proposing to spend £125 million on it?

Jeremy Hunt: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has a long-standing view on this matter. I am guided by clinical advice. Over the next two years, we will publish the cancer survival rates by multidisciplinary team across the country in all the major cancers for the very first time. That will give us a much better objective base from which we can work out what the most effective treatments are.

Nick Gibb: Despite the fact that the incidence of breast cancer peaks in the 85-plus age group, the peak age for breast surgery is for women in the their mid-50s and 60s. Does that not confirm the findings of the Royal College of Surgeons-Age UK report that, despite trends towards older people leading healthier lives, many older women are missing out on curative surgery, from which they are perfectly fit enough to benefit?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend will know that last October we outlawed age discrimination, and if that is the reason for this happening, it is totally unacceptable. We have to recognise that cancer is one of our biggest killers and that the over-85s are a key group if we are going to tackle it. He will welcome today’s news about making available drugs to tackle breast cancer, which may mean that surgery will no longer be necessary.

Jim Cunningham: Will the Minister tell us what the reduction in size of the Department’s cancer policy team will be after April 2013, and whether any of the team’s functions will be removed to other bodies or scrapped?

Jeremy Hunt: We are reducing investment in the back office so we can put more money into the front line. The result is that there are 219,000 more cancer treatments every year than there were under the last year of the Labour Government.

Sexual Health Policy

Nick Smith: When his Department plans to publish its proposed new sexual health policy document.

Norman Lamb: We plan to publish our policy document on sexual health and HIV shortly. Improving sexual health is very important for individuals and communities.

Nick Smith: Can the Minister explain why the sexual health policy has been delayed for almost two years? Does he accept that this delay is affecting the ability of PCTs to deliver effective sexual health services?

Norman Lamb: From April, local authorities will be responsible for commissioning services. Because we have seen this really impressive increase in funding for public health, local authorities will have the ability to maintain and indeed improve sexual health services for their local communities. That is something of which we should be proud.

Diane Abbott: On the sexual health strategy, the Minister will be aware that nearly half of the national incidence of HIV is in London, so what steps will be taken from April to co-ordinate the prevention of HIV London-wide?

Norman Lamb: I am very much aware of the situation in London, and I acknowledge that some good work has already been undertaken there. Local authorities are very much aware of their responsibility that will apply from April and are already working with clinical commissioning groups in London to ensure that comprehensive services are in place for the London community.

Mike Freer: Pan-London preventive health care is important, but with the devolution of funding to local authorities, there is a great risk of them refusing to pool funds and of preventive health programmes in London collapsing. Can the Minister reassure Londoners that pan-London programmes will continue?

Norman Lamb: Yes, I can absolutely reassure the hon. Gentleman that there will be comprehensive services, which will cut across local authorities. We have to remember that local authorities will be under a legal responsibility to provide confidential open access to sexual health services and contraception services. Local authorities in London are aware of the need to ensure that comprehensive services are available from April this year.

Healthcare Appointments/Operations (Postponements)

Ian Swales: What recent assessment he has made of the number of healthcare appointments and operations which are postponed.

Jeremy Hunt: My Department collects data on the number of cancelled elective and urgent operations, which show that these remain very low compared to total activity. We do not collect information on postponed appointments or operations. The NHS must make arrangements locally to minimise postponements and cancellations to avoid the inconvenience to patients.

Ian Swales: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. This is an issue in my area, with the chief executive of South Tees hospital saying that one factor is excessive use of A and E for non-urgent cases, resulting in pressure on hospital resources. What can the Secretary of State do to make sure that A and E units are used only for genuine accidents and emergencies?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I am concerned that 114 non-urgent operations were cancelled in the South Tees area between November and January, which is significantly higher than this time last year. He is right that we need to think about the model for an A and E service. Nearly 1 million more people go through A and E every year than they did two years ago. We have to recognise that for A and E services to be sustainable, we need to think about people who would better off seeing their GP or going to an urgent care centre.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that health care appointments are still bedevilled by the number of people who do not show up, even for appointments with consultants and senior hospital staff? Is it not about time that we looked at a simple system, in which people could pay up front a small amount of money that they get back when they turn up? I am sure that my constituents, as good Yorkshire people, would take their appointments much more seriously if they got their money back when they turned up?

Jeremy Hunt: I am interested to hear that suggestion from the Labour Benches, which is not necessarily where I would have expected it to come from. The hon. Gentleman might be surprised at my response, which is that I would be very concerned about such a system. I understand the issue and I think we need to modernise the process of GP and hospital appointments. Technology can play a good role in that, for example by giving people text reminders of appointments that they have booked. My concern is that the system suggested by the hon. Gentleman would put people off going to see their doctor if they needed to. I would not want to do anything that deterred people from using the NHS who most need to do so.

Accident and Emergency Departments (Waiting Times)

Kate Green: What estimate he has made of the number of patients who waited longer than four hours for treatment in accident and emergency departments in 2012; and if he will make a statement.

Daniel Poulter: In 2012, the NHS saw nearly 22 million people in A and E across the country, with 96% seen within four hours, which I am sure the hon. Lady will agree is a great achievement. That means that the A and E clinical quality indicators for high-quality patient care are being met in the NHS.

Kate Green: Last week, the Manchester Evening News reported that more than 1,000 patients had waited more than four hours at A and Es across Greater Manchester in December. I am sure the Minister is well aware of the planned downgrading of services at Trafford general
	hospital, and I understand that last night the joint health scrutiny committees of Trafford and Manchester agreed that the proposals should be referred to the Secretary of State for decision. Given last month’s alarming figures, will Ministers assure me that in reaching a decision about the future of Trafford general hospital, full account will be taken of capacity across Greater Manchester?

Daniel Poulter: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I recognise her concerns for her constituents. As has been outlined, there are seasonal variations, and I am sure that local commissioners will want to take such issues into account when they make decisions, and they must meet the reconfiguration tests set out by the previous Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley).

Gavin Barwell: The Better Services Better Value review of NHS services in south-west London identified that Croydon university hospital does not have sufficient senior doctors in its A and E, and nor did it under the previous Government. The review has been put on hold because Surrey has asked to be included. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that there will be a rapid solution to ensure that we have the A and E care that we deserve?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is right to highlight a long-standing problem—it has not happened just recently —of a lack of particularly middle-grade doctors in A and Es. Although the number of consultants has increased by about 50%, as A and Es move rightly towards becoming a 24/7 consultant-led service, attracting middle grades to the specialty has been a problem. We set up a task force to consider that, as well as making better use of a multidisciplinary work force and emergency nurse practitioners to meet some of the staff shortages.

Jamie Reed: The performance of A and E services has an obvious and acute effect on the performance of ambulance services. In London, freedom of information requests show that the number of ambulances waiting more than 30 minutes from arriving at hospital to handing over their patients has gone up by two thirds over the last year, that ambulances are missing their targets in responding to the most serious life-threatening callouts, and that the average length of time that patients wait in ambulances before accessing A and E is going up, and in some cases patients are waiting almost three hours. The Care Quality Commission says that London Ambulance Service NHS Trust does
	“not have sufficient staff to keep people safe”.
	The question for the Secretary of State is simple: what is he going to do about it?

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the unacceptable variations in the quality of triage and handover between ambulance services and hospitals, not just in London but in other parts of the country. Many hospitals, however, do that well, and it is important that local MPs highlight the issue, champion good practice on handovers and ensure that that good practice is carried out at other A and Es. It is unacceptable that patients should wait for handover.

John Pugh: Can the Minister update the House on the roll-out of the 111 service and its effect on A and E admissions and 999 calls?

Daniel Poulter: As my hon. Friend knows, we are developing the 111 service further to improve triage and take pressure off accident and emergency services when that is appropriate. I am sure all Members agree that when patients do not need to go to A and E, it is best for them to be treated in the community or properly triaged.

Specialist Accident and Emergency Doctors

Eric Ollerenshaw: What steps he is taking to improve the recruitment and retention of specialist accident and emergency doctors.

Daniel Poulter: That is a long-standing problem. Recognising that emergency medicine is moving towards becoming a 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week service, the Government have set up an emergency medicine task force to tackle the problem and encourage more recruitment of middle-grade doctors to A and E specialties.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Might it be time for us to take a leaf out of the Department for Education’s book, and consider offering scholarships or bursaries tied to doing the job for a certain number of years in order to improve recruitment and retention in this difficult area?

Daniel Poulter: Bursaries are already available to medical students to encourage recruitment to the medical profession. As for the specific question of A and E recruitment, at the end of last year I published—alongside the report from the Doctors and Dentists Review Body on the consultant contracts and clinical excellence awards—a report on junior doctors in training. That has given us an excellent opportunity to consider what rewards and inducements may be available to encourage junior doctors to move into A and E and other specialties in which the work is particularly intensive and the meeting of staffing requirements has posed a long-standing challenge.

Liz Kendall: The Government say that the number of doctors in the NHS has increased by 5,000 since they came to power. When did those doctors start their training?

Daniel Poulter: We know that it takes five or sometimes six years for doctors to complete their medical training. The key difference is that under the plans left by the last Government not all doctors were guaranteed places of work in the NHS after completing their training, whereas the present Government are ensuring that they find NHS jobs. That is why we have 5,000 more doctors in the NHS. The same applies to midwives: under the last Government they were not finding places after completing their training, but under this Government they are, and there are 800 more of them.

Alcohol Consumption (Damage to Health)

Kelvin Hopkins: What steps he plans to take to address damage to health caused by alcohol consumption.

Norman Lamb: We published the Government’s alcohol strategy on 23 March 2012, and we are taking a comprehensive approach to reducing the incidence of alcohol-related disease and crime. Our strategy includes the introduction of a minimum unit price for alcohol, actions at local level, and pledges from industry under the responsibility deal.

Kelvin Hopkins: The number of UK deaths from liver cirrhosis has increased by five times since 1970, while in France, Italy and Spain it has halved, and is now lower than the number in Britain. Even more disturbing is the fact that thousands of babies are still being born every year in Britain permanently damaged by alcohol. When will the Government take urgent, effective action to deal with this crisis?

Norman Lamb: I entirely share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. The Government have already taken action: we set out a strategy in March last year, and we are now consulting on the introduction of a minimum alcohol price. That could save up to 700 lives a year in 10 years’ time, which would make a dramatic difference. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman supports what the Government are doing.

Sarah Champion: Damage to health as a result of alcohol consumption often leads to wider social damage. I have seen that at first hand when visiting shelters for the homeless in Rotherham. Many homeless people cannot gain access to rehabilitation services because they do not have GPs to refer them. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that those services are available to everyone, especially those who need them most?

Norman Lamb: The hon. Lady has raised a really important point. One of the consequences of the responsibility deal is that by 2015, 1 billion units of alcohol—about 2%—will be taken out of the market, and that will help some problem drinkers significantly. Moreover, the money that the Government are investing in public health gives local authorities an opportunity to invest in prevention services in order to deal specifically with the core group of people to whom the hon. Lady has referred.

Urgent Care Services

Lorely Burt: What plans he has to review urgent care services.

Daniel Poulter: The configuration of urgent care services is a matter for the local NHS, and commissioners should ensure that there is provision of appropriate urgent care services locally to provide safe and effective care for patients.

Lorely Burt: A review of urgent care services by the new GP-led clinical commissioning group for Solihull is causing consternation as it is throwing the future of our highly regarded walk-in centre into doubt. Does the Minister agree that users must be properly consulted,
	as services must be designed around patients, and that allocation to cost centres must come second to delivering services?

Daniel Poulter: I agree with my hon. Friend. Where there are well-functioning local services that have local support, commissioners should recognise that in their decisions, but it is also important to highlight that any reconfiguration of local services has to meet the four tests laid down by the previous Secretary of State: support from GP commissioners; strengthened public and patient engagement; clarity on the clinical evidence base; and support for patient choice. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.

Fiona Mactaggart: One of the ways in which the Government are trying to prevent urgent care and A and E admissions is by holding down the funding for unplanned admissions to 30% above 2009 levels. That is proving very hard in places where many people who arrive for A and E or urgent care are not registered with a GP. What can the Minister do to help with the funding of services in communities where it has proved impossible to reduce A and E admissions?

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Lady rightly highlights that there are challenges ensuring registration with GPs, particularly in areas with large migrant population groups. In some parts of London, each year as many as one third of patients move and change GP surgeries. This is a big challenge and we are encouraging local hospitals to make sure that people who turn up at A and Es inappropriately subsequently register with a GP.

Community Hospitals

Anne McIntosh: What his policy is on community hospitals.

Daniel Poulter: The Government are committed to supporting the NHS to work better by extending best practice on improving discharge from acute hospitals and increasing access to care and treatment in the community. Community hospitals play a valuable role in this process.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome my hon. Friend’s reply. Will he give an assurance that going forward there will always be a place for community hospitals in respect of palliative and rehab care, which can be more easily delivered in one place?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Community hospitals can provide a good focus for palliative care, respite care, intermediate care and step-up and step-down care close to home, particularly for people in rural communities who may otherwise have to travel very long distances to attend hospitals. I hope the community hospitals in my hon. Friend’s constituency will have a long and vibrant future.

Topical Questions

Annette Brooke: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: We want to make 2013 the year we break down the stigma associated with dementia and transform the care and treatment received by the one in three over-65s who will get the condition as some stage. Today, the Alzheimer’s Society published a map showing the totally unacceptable variations in dementia diagnosis across the country, with some areas diagnosing fewer than a third of people who have the condition, thereby denying them the medicine and support that would help them live happily at home for much longer. We are determined to put this right.

Annette Brooke: Given that next week is designated as cervical cancer prevention week and we know that many women ignore, or do not recognise, the early symptoms of cervical cancer, what action will the Secretary of State take to raise awareness of cervical cancer symptoms?

Jeremy Hunt: That is a very important point. Every year we screen about 3.5 million women for cervical cancer and we think we save about 4,500 lives, but we could save many more. Our “Be Clear on Cancer” campaign is highlighting the four clear symptoms people need to watch out for: unexplained bleeding, weight loss, pain, and lumps.

Paul Blomfield: The Minister of State earlier failed to answer the key question on midwife numbers, so I wonder whether the Secretary of State could take it on. Before the last election, the Prime Minister made a firm pledge to increase the number of midwives by 3,000. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether that pledge will be honoured or discarded along with all the other promises on the NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: The number is up by 800 already, but as the Labour Front-Bench team knows, it takes some time to train midwives. I say to the hon. Gentleman that none of the investment in additional midwives would be possible if we had a real-terms cut in the NHS budget, which is what his Front-Bench team wants.

Douglas Carswell: Many of my constituents in Jaywick have complained about local GP services, saying that there are too many locums and inadequate provision. In order to attract and retain good GPs in an area with a challenging work load, the local commissioning body needs to be able to offer them more favourable terms. Will the Minister ensure that there is sufficient local flexibility so that the commissioning body can do that?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, putting his finger on a key issue: the 24-hour availability of GP services. That is going to be crucial as the NHS goes forward. The NHS medical director, Bruce Keogh, is looking at the whole issue of seven-day working in the NHS and will certainly be examining what flexibility needs to be given to local areas to make that possible.

Mike Gapes: On 30 December, ambulances in north-east London were diverted from the Whipps Cross, Queen’s and Homerton hospitals, with only the accident and emergency
	units at the Royal London hospital and the King George hospital in Ilford being open. Last week, on 8 January, Queen’s hospital in Romford was again diverting ambulances. Will the new Secretary of State look at the decision of his predecessor, whom I see on the Bench near him, and cancel the insane decision to close the accident and emergency unit at King George hospital?

Jeremy Hunt: The decision has been taken, but we have made it absolutely clear that we will not proceed with implementing it until there is sufficient capacity in the area, particularly at Queen’s hospital in Romford, to cope with any additional pressures caused by it, and that undertaking remains.

Anne McIntosh: The NHS has confirmed that North Yorkshire is the only part of the country that will inherit a £19 million debt, which has to be carried by the new clinical commissioning groups. That was the situation we were promised we would never be in. What is the Secretary of State going to do to urgently address the chronic underfunding of rural areas for the NHS in North Yorkshire?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend and I have previously discussed this matter, and she is right to highlight that there are particular challenges to address in rural areas, in terms of both distances to travel and an ageing population requiring considerable health care resources. That will of course be a matter for the NHS Commissioning Board to examine when it considers future funding allocations.

Mary Glindon: As one in three women who get cancer are over the age of 70, can the Minister say when the newly launched “Be Clear on Cancer” campaign will be rolled out nationally?

Jeremy Hunt: It is our intention to roll it out nationally as soon as possible, and I will make sure that the hon. Lady gets the exact details.

Iain Stewart: Many of my constituents are concerned by the Care Quality Commission’s recent findings at Milton Keynes hospital, which came despite an increase in nursing staff since 2010. What reassurances can my right hon. Friend give my constituents that the problems are being rectified and that they will be able to enjoy high-quality care?

Norman Lamb: First, let me say that substandard care simply will not be tolerated and it has to be taken extremely seriously. I understand that the trust involved is reviewing its staffing levels so that the necessary improvements can be made. It has also started two-hourly checks, during which nursing staff check that patients have everything they need to be both safe and comfortable. There is clearly a big challenge and the trust has to meet it.

Pamela Nash: The implications of HIV go well beyond health issues alone, yet the Government have so far refused to implement a new, cross-departmental HIV strategy. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have implemented their own such strategies, but 95% of people in the UK living with HIV reside in England. Will the Secretary of State commit to discussing this issue with his Cabinet colleagues, particularly those in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education?

Norman Lamb: I take extremely seriously the point that the hon. Lady makes. It seems to make more sense to be part of a comprehensive, integrated sexual health strategy, which the Government are planning and which will be published very soon. Services tend to be delivered together in the same units, so it makes sense to have a single strategy to deal with all those issues.

David Amess: In the light of widespread representations from constituents about the proposals for the centralisation of pathology services, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consider the clinical concerns very carefully before any such changes are sanctioned?

Daniel Poulter: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and he is right to highlight the fact that any decisions about service reconfigurations must be clinically led, as was outlined in the Government’s tests for any service reconfiguration.

Heidi Alexander: Last week, the Secretary of State refused my request to meet a small group of local GPs, hospital doctors and residents who are opposed to the closure of accident and emergency and maternity at Lewisham hospital, yet in his former role he seemed very happy to trade hundreds of texts with Rupert Murdoch’s lobbyists about the purchase of BSkyB by News Corp. Why is it one rule for Rupert Murdoch’s lobbyists and another for doctors in Lewisham?

Jeremy Hunt: I think that the hon. Lady might perhaps read Lord Leveson’s conclusions before she starts hurling about allegations, many of which came from her side of the House, that were later shown to be totally false. With respect to the decision on Lewisham hospital, I thought that we had a very useful meeting last night with the south London MPs who are directly affected. She understands that the process put into law by her party and her Government means that I cannot reopen the entire consultation and start seeing some groups without seeing all groups that are affected. That is why I am limiting the discussions I have with colleagues, but I think that that is the right thing to do.

Paul Burstow: The evidence is compelling that improved access to talking therapies for children and adults makes a huge difference to their mental health. Will the Minister therefore assure me and the House that the NHS Commissioning Board will have the necessary dedicated teams to ensure that the adult improving access to psychological therapies—IAPT—programme is delivered and that the new children’s programme is, too?

Norman Lamb: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Government take the development of talking therapies extremely seriously and I can confirm that I met Lord Layard yesterday, together with representatives of the NHS Commissioning Board. There will be a central team and we are absolutely determined to keep driving this approach forward, as there is real evidence of results.

Madeleine Moon: Today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph carries an article on dementia, including a quote from a GP who says that it is not useful to give an early diagnosis when there are no drug or care needs. Does the Minister agree that that GP, like many others, fails to realise that for pre-senile dementias in particular, early diagnosis allows planning and allows families to understand the confusion created by altered personalities, behaviour, emotional responses and language skills?

Jeremy Hunt: I know that the hon. Lady spoke very movingly in the debate on dementia last week and I wholeheartedly agree with her. The medicines available for people with dementia do not help everyone, but we do not know that until we try them. By diagnosing only 42% of people with dementia, as is currently the case, we are denying nearly two thirds of dementia sufferers the chance to see whether they could benefit from those medicines and, as she rightly says, the chance to plan their care, which could mean that they could live at home for much longer.

John Baron: The all-party group on cancer is delighted that the one and five-year cancer survival indicators have been included in the CCG outcome indicator set. We have campaigned for that in the belief that it will drive forward earlier diagnosis, as the Secretary of State knows. Can he clarify how CCGs will be held to account through that indicator set? For example, what action will be taken on underperforming CCGs?

Jeremy Hunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaigning on cancer issues through the all-party group. The NHS Commissioning Board is held to account through the mandate, which clearly states that we must make tangible progress towards having the lowest mortality rates in Europe for cancer and a number of other major diseases. I will expect the board to clamp down hard on CCGs who fail to deliver on what needs to happen for them to deliver on that promise.

Dan Jarvis: Cancer Research UK has expressed deep concern about the fragmentation of cancer services and the climate of uncertainty that makes it harder to improve them due to the Government’s NHS reorganisation. I appreciate that that is not the fault of the Secretary of State, but he has the power to do something about it. Will he listen to Cancer Research UK and stop the fragmentation of cancer services?

Jeremy Hunt: Of course, I understand the concerns of Cancer Research, and I know that the hon. Gentleman understands the personal tragedy that cancer can cause. The change in the clinical networks is happening because we want them to cover dementia, which we were talking about earlier, mental health services and maternity and
	paediatric services. It is right that they should do so, but I want to make absolutely sure that as we go through the restructuring the benefits of the cancer clinical networks remain as strong as ever.

Pauline Latham: Will my right hon. Friend look at the east midlands cancer drugs fund? While I welcome the cancer drugs fund enormously, the east midlands will yet again underspend, leaving some of my constituents paying for their own treatment because they have been refused funding. Will my right hon. Friend please get his Department to investigate why?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend has mentioned the issue to me before, and I am happy to look into it in detail for her.

Valerie Vaz: How will the Secretary of State assess the effect of the cancer drugs fund on cancer survival rates?

Jeremy Hunt: It will be very easy to look at the number of lives saved. We will be able to see the impact of the fund, because it only started in 2010.

Philip Hollobone: Kettering has the sixth fastest household growth rate in England, and accident and emergency admissions to Kettering general hospital are now at 12% year on year. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the NHS funding formula reflects the very latest population estimates?

Jeremy Hunt: NHS funds are independently decided by the NHS Commissioning Board, and I know that is a key concern of the board. I visited Kettering hospital, so I know that it is a very busy hospital coping well in difficult circumstances.

Meg Hillier: Penalties on readmission rates were introduced to improve clinical practice, but patients suffering from sickle cell and thalassaemia in my constituency and elsewhere cause hospitals to be fined for readmission, even though it is often in the patient’s best clinical interest. Will the Minister once again reconsider exempting sickle cell and thalassaemia from the penalty?

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Lady is right to raise concerns about specific groups. The direction of travel in reducing readmission rates has to be the right thing; far too many patients were bouncing back to hospital when they would have been better looked after in the community. The longer term answer for some conditions, such as heart disease and possibly sickle cell and thalassaemia, may be year-of-care tariffs, which we are looking at very closely, as is the NHS Commissioning Board.

Nick Harvey: The Secretary of State just referred to the new strategic clinical networks. As the cancer networks are merged with them, what safeguards are there to stem the loss of expertise in cancer and what specialist support will be available to CCGs trying to achieve the targets we have heard about?

Jeremy Hunt: The biggest safeguard is the fact that the Government have made it one of our key priorities to improve mortality rates for cancer to the best in Europe. That means we are putting in a huge amount; for example, we are investing £450 million in early diagnosis. There are many other measures, which shows how seriously we take it.

Natascha Engel: My 92-year-old constituent, Ron Lewin, was referred for minor oral surgery. He was eventually written to by the specialist, who said that waiting lists were very long and that assessment appointments were available in 18 weeks, but that they did offer an independent service if he wished to be seen earlier. Independent obviously means paying to jump the queue. Is that how the Government propose to cut waiting lists?

Daniel Poulter: It is a decision for front-line medical professionals to outline when treatment should or should not be given. Treatment must always be given on the basis of clinical need, so I am sure the hon. Lady will be feeding that message back to local commissioners. There is an opportunity for people to appeal against decisions when they are not made on the basis of clinical need, as that is clearly not the right thing and not in the interests of patients.

Zac Goldsmith: Will my right hon. Friend’s Department make an assessment of the effects on local air quality and public health of a potential third runway at Heathrow, and will he submit those findings to the Davies commission on airport capacity?

Jeremy Hunt: I am very happy to look into whether that is an area where my Department should take responsibility.

Alex Cunningham: My constituent, Elaine Catterick, has had a serious operation at the James Cook hospital on Teesside cancelled twice in three months—once with just a few hours’ notice. She has also learned that there are twice-daily meetings at the hospital to decide whose operation should be cancelled next, as staff struggle to cope with spending cuts. I hope that is not what the Secretary of State wanted from his reforms, so what is he going to do about it?

Jeremy Hunt: All cancelled operations are a concern. The number of cancelled operations was about 50% higher as a proportion of all operations under the previous Government, but no operation should be cancelled, and we will continue to do what we can to bring down the numbers.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. My apologies to colleagues whom I could not accommodate but, as usual with Health questions, demand massively outstrips supply.

Supermarket Pricing Information

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

John Denham: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require supermarkets to publish pricing data on all the goods they sell in a standardised, accessible, online format suitable to enable comprehensive comparison of the price of supermarket goods by retailer, store and product, and to enable independent analysis of pricing; and for connected purposes.
	My aim is simple: to enable supermarket shoppers, which is most people in the country, to compare the prices of goods, product by product, store by store, company by company through an app on their smartphone, laptop or personal computer. None of the information that I want shoppers to have is secret. It is all publicly available. The problem is that, to get our hands on it, we would need an army of volunteers to go into every store, every day, to check the prices of every product. That is possible in theory, but it is quite impossible in practice.
	The spread of smart devices, public familiarity with apps, and the development of a community of innovative app designers capable of handling data analysis in sophisticated ways has made things possible that could not be done a few years ago. I think that this is the time to harness that technology in the interests of consumers. If we do, we can even things up just a bit between the supermarket giants and the consumer.
	Barely a day goes by without someone in the House saying that times are tough for hard-working families. Real wages have fallen for many. Family budgets have been squeezed. For many, the weekly supermarket bill—about 16% of family spending on average, but much bigger for many low-income families—is one of the largest single parts of family spending. No one has money to waste. Shoppers want to know that they are getting the best value for money for their hard-won pounds.
	We want to know which supermarket genuinely has the best prices. We want to know how much extra we will pay if we go to the small branch—the local, the express—rather than a superstore of the same company. We do not want to be lured in by attractive headline promotions, only to be ripped off once we are inside the store. We want an easy way to work out the difference in cost between vegetables, some of which are bagged, some of which are loose and some of which are sold confusingly in different quantities. The truth is that no one can be sure that they are getting the best deal or the best information on any of those things today.
	The major supermarkets are quick to say how competitive the grocery market is. It is true that there are 10 major companies competing on the high street, but that does not mean that the market always works for consumers. The supermarkets have a huge advantage over the rest of us. They amass data about our shopping habits—I am not talking about the data they have on each of us individually, but about the information they have on our collective shopping habits. They know what shoppers buy, how much and how often. They know what sort of price promotions attract us. They know when and what
	sort of pricing does not put us off because it looks good, because it is an essential, or because we just cannot work it out while pushing a trolley with kids in tow.
	While the supermarkets have a huge amount of information on us, most shoppers are still left shopping around in a way that we would recognise from 20 years ago. Use of price comparison websites is growing fast, but those sites do not cover all supermarkets, all products or all stores. It is not an equal battle. As a GCSE economics student would tell us, markets only work well when everyone has the same level of information about what they are buying. It is not surprising that numerous studies have highlighted what is going on, and I have tried to summarise some of them on my website. Briefly, last year, The Grocer magazine found that in Tesco’s “Big Price Drop” campaign, for every two items that dropped in price, three went up. On 7 January, mySupermarket.co.uk highlighted current problems, and I shall give the House two examples. Sainsbury’s Goodfellas pizza—two for £4.50. Not only was that product cheaper in two other retailers where the customer would have had to buy only one, but the offer price was 16% higher than the price in Sainsbury’s most of last year. Innocent Smoothie—two for £5 in Asda and Waitrose, but cheaper in two other retailers and an offer price 20p higher than the average in those shops over the past 12 months, a price which had fluctuated between £2.79 and £2.30.
	On Friday my office looked at a basket of 12 items in a Sainsbury Local in Bethnal Green and the Sainsbury superstore in Whitechapel. Across the basket of groceries the local store was 10% more expensive, with bananas 42%, carrots 59% and broccoli 49% more expensive. I accept that most people must know that local stores are more expensive, but do they know how much, and is it not worrying that the mark-up is so great on fresh fruit and vegetables?
	The picture is clear. It is almost impossible to get comparable and reliable information about prices across all supermarkets and all products. It is hard to be sure when a price promotion is a bargain and when it is a rip-off. It is difficult to get the facts we need to question why prices vary so much from store to store or week by week. All these data are held on central supermarket IT systems. If the data were made available, online and in real time, innovative entrepreneurs would quickly produce apps that would not only compare prices but would, automatically and online, police such misleading deals and shed a light on store-by-store pricing policies.
	I think those same entrepreneurs would focus on areas that currently see little competition but which are expensive, such as gluten-free foods. They may link pricing data to other data on organic food, farming practices, sustainability and local sourcing, for shoppers who want to combine value for money and their other values. I stress to the House again that I am talking only about data that are, in principle, a matter of public record. I am not asking supermarkets to reveal any commercially confidential data. But making public and really available real information about real prices would be enough to throw the spotlight on value for money and misleading discounts.
	In November the Office of Fair Trading published a report on discount pricing policies and promoted a voluntary code of practice. In my view, the previous
	Government, of whom I was part, often found themselves between the rock of statutory regulation, burdensome and heavy handed, and the hard place of voluntary guidance, usually shot full of holes. The current Government are often in the same place. The simple beauty of my proposal is that a minor regulation could make the whole panoply of statutory regulation and investigation by the OFT largely redundant. Price transparency, backed by efficient data analysis, would simply drive sharp practice and misleading pricing out of the marketplace.
	So far the supermarkets have been reluctant to say this is a bad idea. How could they? In principle, the data are public already. The issues they raise are mainly financial and technical. So I challenge the supermarkets today: you put up your technical experts and your systems managers, and I will assemble an independent team of experts, put them together, and let us see how hard it would be.
	I have limited my proposal to the 10 supermarkets that would be covered by the current Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, but many independent convenience stores may wish to join. Most use propriety software for their pricing and tills, and once an industry standard is established, it would be simple for that software to be upgraded and to give those stores the chance to join.
	My proposal has gained the support of the consumer organisation Which?, comparison websites, and the chief executive of the Open Data Institute. Open data is an unstoppable movement. As a Cabinet member I made Ordnance Survey mapping data freely available, to the benefit of the public and innovative businesses alike. This Government have supported the Open Data Institute for public data. Over time, what is good enough for the public sector will become a demand on the private sector. As smartphones and consumer apps grow in availability and popularity, the supermarkets will not be able to ask, “Why should we do this?” They will have to explain why they have not done it.
	Unless I am very lucky, this Bill may not become law, but I predict that this is only the start of a movement for transparent pricing and online information that will grow and grow. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr John Denham, Dr Alan Whitehead, Mr Nick Raynsford, Paul Blomfield, Lorely Burt, Jonathan Edwards, Justin Tomlinson and Caroline Lucas present the Bill.
	Mr John Denham accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 February, and to be printed (Bill 119).

Constitutional Law

[Relevant document: the Sixth Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, on The Referendum on Separation for Scotland: The proposed Section 30 Order—Can a player also be the referee?, HC 863.]

Michael Moore: I beg to move,
	That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 22 October 2012, be approved.
	I am grateful that we have longer to debate the order than would usually be the case. This reflects the interest that hon. and right hon. Members have shown in the issue and the time they have spent scrutinising it, not least in the Scottish Affairs Committee, whose report is a very important contribution to the parliamentary process.
	On 15 October 2012, the Prime Minister, the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and I signed an agreement on behalf of our respective Governments that will, if the order is approved by this House and the other place, allow a legal, fair and decisive referendum to take place on Scottish independence. We will face the most important political choice that people have taken in Scotland in more than 300 years.

Brian H Donohoe: What is the role of the Electoral Commission? Can the Scottish Government override it or is it mandatory for them to accept what it says?

Michael Moore: I applaud the hon. Gentleman’s early intervention. He will not be surprised to know that he has anticipated slightly an issue that I will turn to at reasonable length, with the House’s permission, later in my speech. Put simply, we expect the same standards to apply to the Scottish Parliament as apply here—no greater, no less.
	This process began with the Scottish National party’s victory in the May 2011 Scottish parliamentary elections and its manifesto pledge to hold an independence referendum. From the very beginning, we recognised the political mandate that the SNP had secured for a referendum. However, as I set out in the House just over a year ago, the Scotland Act 1998 is very clear that the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate on matters reserved to this Parliament. That includes the constitution and, specifically, the Union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England.
	That is why we published a consultation paper on 10 January 2012, which set out the different ways to deliver a legal referendum. Shortly afterwards, the Scottish Government set out their own consultation.
	Our paper sought views on how to facilitate a legal, fair and decisive referendum. We set out the available legislative options and stated that our preferred option was to provide the Scottish Parliament with the legal competence to legislate itself. This received the overwhelming support of those responding to our consultation. More than 70% of respondents agreed that the Scottish Parliament should be given that power. Throughout the discussions with the Scottish Government, we stressed that there should also be a single question to deal decisively with
	the issue of independence. Three quarters of respondents to our consultation agreed. In our consultation paper, we set out our view that the Electoral Commission, the independent body responsible for overseeing referendums in the UK, should be responsible for this referendum. That is the same position as for any other referendum.
	The UK Government’s position was supported by 86% of respondents. Indeed, that was a point that the Scottish Government accepted fairly quickly. They moved from their initial proposal to establish a separate Scottish body to oversee the poll to a position of accepting that the Electoral Commission was the right body to oversee the referendum.
	We also sought views on timing and on the franchise. On timing, we sought views on when the referendum should be held. Many people supported our view that it should be held sooner rather than later. Indeed, the order before us today provides an end date for the referendum, but it does not prevent it from being held sooner. It will be for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to set the referendum date.
	On the franchise, we asked for views on who should be entitled to vote in the referendum.

Andy Sawford: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there are any provisions in the Bill to take account of the views of the many Scottish people who live in other countries—especially the Scottish population in Corby, who are absolutely convinced that we are stronger and better together? Will he take account of their views?

Michael Moore: It is important that people in all parts of the United Kingdom make it clear to all of us living in Scotland that they value the Union and the United Kingdom. I respect the fact that there is a strong and rich diaspora of Scots all over the United Kingdom and, indeed, all over the world. Having looked carefully at the options for the franchise, we took a straightforward decision—we agreed wholeheartedly with the Scottish Government’s view on this—that the same franchise should apply to the referendum as applied to the Scottish Parliament elections that gave the Scottish National party its mandate in that Parliament. That keeps it simple, straightforward and fair, and that is the basis on which we will proceed.

Mike Freer: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is an anomaly that a Frenchman living in Edinburgh can vote on Scottish independence when a Scot living in London cannot do so?

Michael Moore: I think that that is a reasonably easily understood anomaly. The French person, the EU national, who has made a commitment to living in Scotland is entitled to vote in a referendum there, just as they would be in the Scottish parliamentary elections. It is important that we show consistency on that front. I accept, however, that there is a range of opinion on this matter, and my hon. Friend has made his own point clearly.
	On the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds participating in the referendum, respondents to our consultation were divided. I will return to that issue later.

Frank Roy: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if this order goes to the Scottish Parliament and if that Parliament agrees to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum, the matter will no longer need to come back to this House or to the other place?

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman highlights an important point. He is right to suggest that, if this House and the other place agree this order and it is passed, that will transfer responsibility for the referendum totally to the Scottish Parliament.
	Following the respective consultations, a period of discussions between Scotland’s two Governments led to the signing of the Edinburgh agreement on 15 October. I will return to the other important elements of that agreement shortly, but first I want to deal with the order itself.
	The order is made under section 30(2) and (4) of the Scotland Act 1998. It inserts a new paragraph 5A into part 1 of schedule 5 to the Act. Part 1 provides, among other things, that the Union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England is reserved to the UK Parliament. New paragraph 5A will ensure that the reservation does not apply to a referendum on independence, provided that the referendum meets the requirements set out. Those requirements are for a single-question referendum, on the subject of independence, to be held before the end of 2014, and without any other referendum provided for by an Act of the Scottish Parliament being held on the same day.
	The order also makes provision in respect of public referendum broadcasts and free mailshots, which would otherwise be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—PPERA, as we know it —referendum campaign broadcasts can be made only by or on behalf of a designated campaign organisation. The order applies that provision of PPERA to an independence referendum. That means that the restriction in PPERA on who can make referendum campaign broadcasts can apply to the independence referendum.
	The agreement in 2006 between the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the BBC requires the BBC to broadcast referendum campaign broadcasts, as defined by PPERA. The provisions of the order mean that the BBC will have the same obligations and responsibilities in respect of independence referendum campaign broadcasts as it would have in respect of any PPERA referendum broadcasts. Under PPERA, each designated campaign organisation can send a mailshot to every elector or household without being required to pay the postage costs. That service is provided by Royal Mail and the costs are recovered from the Consolidated Fund. The order applies those provisions in PPERA to an independence referendum. It specifically provides that the cost to the Royal Mail of providing the service will be recovered from Scottish Ministers.
	The section 30 order that we are debating today will enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a legal referendum. The Scottish Parliament has already considered
	the order and approved it unanimously. If the order is approved by both Houses of this Parliament, it will enable the Scottish Government to introduce a referendum Bill setting out the wording of the question, the date of the referendum and the rules of the campaign for the Scottish Parliament to consider. This devolution of power will ensure that the details of the referendum process itself are made in Scotland, in the Scottish Parliament. That is a principle of great importance to the devolution settlement. Furthermore, the approach here respects another key feature of devolution—namely, that once a matter is passed to the Scottish Parliament, it is for that Parliament to determine the details of the legislation that follows.
	However, our agreement does not just make the referendum legal and respect the devolution settlement. It also sets out the conditions that are necessary and that have been agreed between the UK and Scottish Governments for the referendum to be fair and decisive. In this context, it is important to consider the memorandum of agreement alongside the order. The agreement is a statement of political intent by Scotland’s two Governments. It commits us jointly to an approach to, and the delivery of, the independence referendum which will ensure that the proceedings are fair and that the outcome is decisive. With permission, Mr Speaker, I will therefore briefly describe that broader agreement.
	At the heart of any fair referendum must lie a set of rules and processes that have the support of both sets of protagonists. For the outcome to be legitimate, both sides of the argument must have faith in all aspects of the referendum. That is particularly true when we are considering the future of our nation. The agreement therefore sets out the commitment of both Governments to the normal rules and procedures that govern referendums in the UK, as contained in PPERA. A core part of the PPERA process is the central role of the Electoral Commission. The two Governments have agreed that the Electoral Commission must review the proposed referendum question, and that its report will be laid before the Scottish Parliament. That process is under way. Since PPERA came into force, there have been three referendums held under that legislation.

Jim McGovern: Does the Secretary of State agree that, if the Scottish Government were to disagree with the Electoral Commission on what form the question should take, that position would be open to a legal challenge?

Michael Moore: I think that there would be a price to pay for that. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall return to that issue shortly.
	The three referendums held under the auspices of the Electoral Commission have been: the north-east regional assembly referendum in 2004; the referendum in Wales in 2011 on further devolution; and the referendum on the voting system for the UK Parliament, also held in 2011. In all three cases, the Electoral Commission reviewed the Government’s proposed question and provided its advice. The Government responded by revising the questions in line with that advice. Of course, in the past, some Members on the SNP Benches have referred to the wording of the proposed question for referendums on local council tax.
	The Government made it clear when they brought forward the regulations to provide for those referendums that discussions were ongoing with the Electoral Commission on the wording of the question. Revised regulations were tabled on 8 January and the Electoral Commission has confirmed that it is content with the revised wording.
	Under the terms of the Edinburgh agreement, it will be for the Scottish Government to respond to the advice of the Electoral Commission. The Scottish Government have committed to putting before the Scottish Parliament their response to the Electoral Commission’s recommendations. That means that the Scottish Government will be held to account by the public and Parliament alike for how they respond to that advice. All Opposition leaders in the Scottish Parliament have stated their intention to abide by the Electoral Commission’s judgment in this case. To do otherwise would be a significant step, for which there would be a political price.
	As I have set out, both Governments recognise that the referendum process must be seen to be fair by both sides of the campaign. That applies across the process, but particularly to the financing of the campaign. As part of the Edinburgh agreement, the Scottish Government committed to consulting the two campaign organisations for their views before proposing spending limits for the referendum campaign to the Scottish Parliament.
	The agreement ensures that the independent Electoral Commission will provide the Scottish Government with advice on the appropriate spending limits for the two campaigns and the parties. That is what has happened in previous referendums, such as the 2011 referendum in Wales on further powers for the Welsh Assembly. In that referendum, the Electoral Commission recommended that the spending limit for designated campaign organisations should be set by reference to the expenditure limits that apply to elections to the relevant legislature. In its response to both Governments’ consultation documents, the Electoral Commission provided its view that the model remains appropriate for the Scottish independence referendum. The Electoral Commission has met the parties represented in the Scottish Parliament to seek their views on the finance arrangements.
	When the Scottish Government set out their final proposals for financing the referendum campaign in the referendum Bill, they must set themselves aside from their own campaigning interests and recognise that their approach is being watched by all of Scotland, and indeed by the international community. That is a point that the Deputy First Minister recognised when she rightly said that the poll must satisfy the highest international standards. All people must believe that there is a fair process and, therefore, a fair result.
	Both Governments agree that the basis for the franchise will be that for the Scottish Parliament elections—that is, those UK or EU citizens who are resident in Scotland. That is set out in the Edinburgh agreement. In addition, the Scottish Government propose to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote. I recognise and respect that there are differing views on that issue in the House. My party, the Liberal Democrat party, supports the principle of 16 and 17-year-olds participating in all elections. Our coalition partners do not, however. Views on both sides of the argument can be found on both sides of the Chamber.
	In devolving the power to hold the referendum, however, we respect that this is a matter that should be debated and determined by the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, where the Scottish Government and Parliament have the power to hold referendums and elections already, they have chosen to allow some 16 and 17-year-olds to vote. However, the Scottish Parliament’s decision with respect to health board and crofting commission elections in Scotland has set no precedent for any elections for which the UK Government are responsible. I fully expect that the Scottish Government’s proposals will be debated robustly in the Scottish Parliament. However, let me be clear that it will be for the Scottish Government to make the case for this proposal in the Scottish Parliament and to deal with the issues that arise. Let me be equally clear that any decision taken by the Scottish Parliament for the referendum will not affect the voting age for parliamentary and local government elections in the United Kingdom. That remains the responsibility of this Parliament alone to determine.

Michael McCann: Have there been any practical discussions between the UK Government and the Scottish Government about the ability to implement this measure ahead of the referendum, given that there has been much talk of the inability to do so because of the state of the electoral register?

Michael Moore: That issue was discussed during the negotiations leading up to the Edinburgh agreement. However, as we made plain in the agreement and as I have repeated this afternoon, as we are devolving that power, it is for the Scottish Government to bring forward their proposals. That will require legislation and that legislation will be properly scrutinised by all of us and, in particular, by MSPs. That process is yet to get under way.

Jim McGovern: When I have visited schools in Dundee recently, it has been pointed out to me that it would be ridiculous if 16 and 17-year-olds were allowed to vote on the future of the country, but could not buy a packet of sparklers on Guy Fawkes night.

Michael Moore: That is a classic example of the debate that rages over whether 16 and 17-year-olds should vote in elections. I take it from that intervention that the hon. Gentleman is not a supporter. However, this is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Fiona O'Donnell: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being very generous. We, as campaigners, will be contacting minors to seek their views and discuss the issues. Has he had any discussions with the Scottish Government about the rules and regulations that will apply to parties engaging with people who are not yet adults?

Michael Moore: The hon. Lady hits on an important, sensitive and practical point that must be considered carefully in any legislation on this issue that is introduced in the Scottish Parliament. Until the legislation is published and people can consider its detail, her point cannot be properly examined. I am confident that the Scottish
	Government are alert to that issue and it is incumbent on them to bring forward appropriate proposals with the necessary safeguards.

Eleanor Laing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the whole House agrees that the Scottish Parliament should make the decisions about the conduct of the referendum, matters such as the franchise ought also to be discussed fully in this House, as we are doing now and will do for some considerable time today, because the outcome of the referendum affects not only Scotland, but the whole United Kingdom?

Michael Moore: My hon. Friend has made two important and linked points. On the first issue, nobody is suggesting for a minute that people in this House cannot offer an opinion about whether it is right or wrong for 16 and 17-year-olds to vote. She is right that this afternoon is a good opportunity for people to make the case one way or the other. On the second point, she is also right that what happens in Scotland affects the whole United Kingdom. A huge amount is at stake in this big debate. Although people south of the border will not vote in the referendum, it is important that their views are included in the public debate. I am sure that they will be.
	Before I took the interventions, I made the point that when 16 and 17-year-olds have been allowed to vote in admittedly smaller elections in Scotland, it has had no ramifications for the decisions that are made in this place, and neither will this decision. However, the debate on the rights and wrongs of 16 and 17-year-olds voting will remain live in politics and I see no worry about that.

Pamela Nash: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way yet again. Before we move on from the franchise, will he advise the House whether there has been any progress in the talks on allowing members of the Scottish armed forces who are, through no fault of their own, serving elsewhere in the UK or around the world to vote in the referendum?

Michael Moore: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who has made that point strongly not only on the Scottish Affairs Committee, but in other debates. I recognise that it is a sensitive issue. We must ensure that, as would be the case in any other referendum or election, those in the armed forces who have a connection to Scotland are aware of what it will take for them to vote in the referendum. There is a range of complexities in that, but the Scottish Government are aware of the issue and understand it. When they publish the legislation, there will be plenty of time for people in the Scottish Parliament, and those of us here who take an interest in the matter, to offer their views on the details.

Frank Roy: May I point out to the Secretary of State that it is not only members of the armed forces who will be affected, but their wives and husbands? For example, people who are based in Catterick may have been moved there from Motherwell.

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point that reinforces the views of his colleagues, and I recognise that this matter is important to Members on
	all sides of the House. It will now be an issue for the Scottish Parliament to consider, and I am confident that in the political debate across Scotland the role of the armed forces and voting will be properly considered.

Menzies Campbell: The exchanges of the last moment or two have raised a broader question. Once responsibilities are handed to the Scottish Parliament, what will be the role of this place in monitoring the issue and ensuring—so far as we can—that the objectives of fairness and decisiveness are properly maintained?

Michael Moore: My right hon. and learned Friend highlights an important issue and principle. In the order and the political agreement that sits alongside it, we set out what we believe should happen when the referendum process is resolved in the Scottish Parliament. As I said earlier, we are observing and honouring the principles of devolution so that when a matter is devolved from this place to the Scottish Parliament, it becomes that Parliament’s responsibility, including all the details and everything that goes with it. We are not, however, disfranchised from the political debate. Plenty of MSPs offered views on this process long before it went anywhere near the Scottish Parliament, and I am confident that lots of MPs will contribute to the debate long after it has left this place, and, if it is passed, the other place as well.

Fiona O'Donnell: Will the Secretary of State confirm whether, as well as actively encouraging members of the armed forces from Scotland to register to vote, people will be encouraged to register their sons and daughters who are 16 and 17-years-old? This issue will affect their lives as well.

Michael Moore: The hon. Lady adds to the points made by her hon. Friends. I am confident that all these issues will be debated in the Scottish Parliament, and I encourage her, and others, to make such representations directly. We are not stymied in this debate simply because we have passed the legal process—assuming that we do. I do not wish to take the House for granted in that respect.

Anas Sarwar: Is that what the SNP thinks?

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman asks me to give views on the role of the SNP, but I am confident that, if they catch your eye, Mr Speaker, SNP Members will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate and set out their own views a little later.

Jim Sheridan: rose—

Michael Moore: Finally, if I may.

Jim Sheridan: May I probe the Secretary of State on the timing of the referendum? He may recall the separatist slogan, “Scotland free by 2003”, yet when it gets the chance in 2012, the SNP says that it is not ready until 2014. Has he picked up any rationale for why that is the case, or is it just the general public view that they are just big fearties?

Michael Moore: I am sure we can offer Hansard the appropriate assistance should it be sought. This is a point on which I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is slightly curious that after 80 years of existence—give or take—the Scottish National party is not rushing to get this over and done with straightaway. One would have thought it would want to do it as quickly as possible, and it would certainly be in Scotland’s best interest to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. However, it will be a matter for the Scottish Government and then the Scottish Parliament to consider.

Ann McKechin: rose—

Michael Moore: I did say finally, but I must give way to the former shadow Secretary of State.

Ann McKechin: I understand there is some suggestion that the Committees in the Scottish Parliament that will deal with the Bills on both the franchise and the referendum will be subject to a truncated timetable programme. Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with the Scottish Government about that? Given the importance of the referendum for our whole country, does he agree it is important that the Scottish Parliament’s Committees have appropriate time to consider the issues in great detail and ensure they are satisfactorily answered?

Michael Moore: The hon. Lady makes an important point. I do not believe it is appropriate for us to discuss that directly with the Scottish Government; it is for the Scottish Parliament to decide how it determines its own businesses. Former Members of that Parliament who are in this House today may wish to pick up on the hon. Lady’s point. I absolutely agree, however, with her central point that we should consider the issue properly and seriously. Symbolically, we are taking longer than we would normally to consider a statutory instrument because of the significance of the order. People would look askance if parliamentary processes elsewhere were cut short in the course of the debate, but the issue is for the Scottish Parliament to determine. We all have colleagues in that Parliament who, I am sure, will make the hon. Lady’s point very vigorously.
	Let me turn to one issue that has attracted some comment, particularly from the Scottish Government. The concluding paragraph of the Edinburgh agreement contains a commitment by both Governments to hold a referendum that is legal, fair and decisive. There have been some creative interpretations of this paragraph in recent times, and I want to take the opportunity to restate its clear and obvious meaning.
	Paragraph 30 reads:
	“The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments are committed, through the Memorandum of Understanding between them and others, to working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communication and mutual respect. The two Governments have reached this agreement in that spirit. They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome. The two Governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.”
	That means that the two Governments will conduct the referendum on the same constructive terms as they work today, and that if the referendum follows the path set out in the order and agreement, its outcome will be
	decisive. Regardless of the result, that constructive relationship should continue as we move forward. That is good practice and common sense. It does not mean, however, that in the event of a yes vote, the remaining UK would facilitate Scotland’s every wish—no more than an independent Scotland would unquestioningly facilitate the wishes of the remaining UK. Inevitably, when there are two separate countries, there are two sets of interests—sometimes mutual, sometimes at odds. That is the case in the UK’s relationships with its closest allies today, and we honour that principle, and so it always will be between separate, sovereign states.
	The Edinburgh agreement, particularly paragraph 30, is a statement of our determination to hold a referendum that is legal, fair and decisive. It does not—and cannot—pre-empt the implications of that vote, and it is important that everyone is clear about that.

Angus MacNeil: The Secretary of State talks about what might happen if the result of the referendum is yes. Whose interests will he be representing post the yes vote?

Michael Moore: I am absolutely confident that Scotland will vote to stay in the United Kingdom. I am committed to doing what is in the best interests of Scotland, regardless of the outcome, as I said on the radio yesterday morning.
	Scotland’s future within the UK will be the most important decision that we as Scots take in our lifetime. Facilitating a legal, fair and decisive referendum is critical. That is why we consulted on this issue, why both Governments have spent many hours discussing and negotiating the process, and why we seek the support of the House today to approve this order.
	Debating this order in the House today marks an important step as we move from discussions on process to the substance of the great debate. It is now essential that the referendum decision is focused on determining whether Scotland chooses to remain an integral part of the most successful partnership of nations the world has ever seen; to remain part of a family of nations that works in the interests of all; or whether it wishes to leave and go it alone. That decision should not be taken lightly; it should be taken after examining all the facts.

Lindsay Roy: Does the Secretary of State think it fair that the Scottish Government can be both the referee and a player in a referendum?

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman and his fellow Committee members have written important reports on this subject and highlighted the dangers in the process. As I made clear in my earlier remarks—and this, I think, is the tenor of the contributions we may anticipate this afternoon—the Scottish Government will act in setting the rules and pushing them through Parliament on behalf of all Scots and both sides of the argument. It is important that they do so in a way that is not fair to one side and unfair to the other.
	I strongly believe that, with the support of colleagues across the House, across Scotland and across the whole of the United Kingdom, fellow Scots will join me in
	the autumn of 2014 in choosing to remain part of the United Kingdom. We are indeed better together. In the meantime, I commend the order to the House.

Margaret Curran: This is indeed an important day in the life of our nation and this Parliament. Rarely do we have an opportunity to debate an issue as fundamental as the future of our country.
	Let me be clear at the outset that we welcome the order that is before the House today. This House has witnessed significant discussions on the future of nations, most recently the future of Scotland and Wales in the Union and the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. Today’s discussion is no less significant, for two reasons. First, it contemplates the possibility of an end to the 300-year-old Union with Scotland. That is important to emphasise, not just for those of us in the Chamber who are from Scotland, but for people who live in the rest of the United Kingdom but believe in a United Kingdom with Scotland as a crucial part—I give due recognition to the good people of Corby for their enthusiasm for that commitment. Secondly, today’s discussion is significant because it is a novel way of settling the issue. Parliament is being invited not to legislate or make a decision, but to delegate the power, under certain strict conditions, to the Scottish Parliament, ultimately—we should never forget this—to allow the Scottish people to make that decision.
	The agreement puts it beyond doubt that, in the words of the First Minister and the Secretary of State, the referendum will be “made in Scotland”. It can be argued that this is not just an example of the success of the United Kingdom’s democracy, but evidence of the strength of the Scottish Parliament—a devolved institution argued for and established by, of course, a Labour Government. The principle that the referendum should be controlled by the Scottish Parliament is important in commanding respect from all sides. However, it is particularly significant in ensuring that after the referendum the Scottish Government cannot suggest that there is any ambiguity about the process or the result. The choice before the people of Scotland is straightforward: whether to leave the United Kingdom or to continue in a partnership of equals in a Union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	As I said at the outset, we on this side of the House support the order. We support it because, if followed, the principles contained in it, as well as in the memorandum of agreement, would provide for a referendum that met the test that we set at the start—namely that, as the Secretary of State said, it should be fair, legal and decisive. Together, the agreement and the order provide that all three conditions can be met if all parties in the referendum hold to their spirit and their letter. It is clear that we now have the opportunity to put before the people of Scotland the question of separation, and that decision will bind us all. As the agreement says, the referendum will deliver a decisive expression of the views of the people of Scotland, along with a result that everyone will respect and must respect.
	This debate is important, because endless constitutional uncertainty is bad for all interests in Scotland, not least those of us who would rather spend our time, energy and efforts dealing with the reality of life for hundreds
	of thousands of Scots, if not millions, who need us to focus on defending and pursuing their interests. Labour spent a generation arguing for devolution, against the protests of the party opposite—or one of them, I should say; I am in a generous mood towards the Secretary of State today.

Jim Murphy: And against the party on the Benches behind us.

Margaret Curran: Indeed. Other parties opposed devolution, as my right hon. Friend points out from a sedentary position. We argued for devolution because it was the best way to deliver social justice and economic progress and because it commanded the support of the vast majority of the Scottish people.

Angus MacNeil: I wonder if the hon. Lady can tell us whether the ends of social justice were advanced last week in the Commons when the majority of Scottish MPs voted against welfare reforms that are being foisted on Scotland by MPs from the rest of the UK. How does that further the ends of social justice and why does she support the right of a Tory Government to govern Scotland and do exactly that? Why is she not an independence supporter?

Margaret Curran: For many years I have argued with the SNP, which wants to say that the problem facing Scotland is the English. I say that the problem facing Scotland at the moment is the Tories and the SNP. The SNP is imposing college cuts, and making Scotland one of the nations of the United Kingdom with the highest increases in unemployment. The hon. Gentleman would be well fit to look to his own party to see the damage it is inflicting in Scotland, instead of always trying to hide behind the blanket of independence—[Interruption.]—although I thank him for that encouragement to energise this debate.
	The order we are debating today demonstrates that devolution has been a success. It has empowered Scots and given our nation a new sense of confidence. With it, we have modernised and changed Britain and the way we govern ourselves. We on this side of the House will take the opportunity that the referendum presents us with to make the argument for a prosperous Scotland within a United Kingdom, backed up by a strong devolution settlement. We will be arguing against the nationalists, who would stop devolution in its tracks just 15 years after we set out on this journey and after it has been so successful. At the end of this process, that means that perhaps we can finally heed the advice of Scotland’s first First Minister.

Malcolm Bruce: Does the hon. Lady think that the SNP might be better prepared for the situation we are in today if it had taken any part in the reform process that has delivered devolution and home rule to date?

Margaret Curran: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which affords me the opportunity to draw attention to the fact that those who opposed devolution—perhaps most strongly at some points—were those in the Scottish National party, which never participated on any multi-party basis to give Scotland the constitutional agreement that we now have. In fact,
	many of us who were prepared to work with others—and who demonstrated that we could do so—did, in fact, work in the best interests of Scotland.
	The right hon. Gentleman also allows me to make the point—which I was just about to make—that we should heed the advice of Scotland’s first First Minister, Donald Dewar, who said in 1998:
	“The…decade must not be one long embittering fight over further constitutional change. For me, the question now is what we do with our Parliament, not what we do to it.”
	In these challenging economic times, perhaps we should focus our minds on the powers of the Scottish Parliament and question how they are being exercised at the moment. That, too, should occupy our energies.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend has just mentioned the late, great Donald Dewar, who said that the decade from 1998 should not be a decade of stifling the Scottish Parliament, but since the SNP got a majority in that Parliament, has not its whole ethos indeed been stifled?

Margaret Curran: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. As a number of hon. Members present know, I served in the Scottish Parliament for 12 years. I was part of many of the exciting developments and changes it inaugurated, but it is with deep disappointment that I now see a Parliament that does not seem to have the proper opportunity to scrutinise the Executive who are part of that arrangement and who also seem to be significantly failing the Scottish people. Although I see constitutional change as a means to an end, I have never seen it as an end in itself. It would serve the Scottish people well if the Scottish Government focused on the work of serving the Scottish people and their interests, rather than just for ever furthering the goal of constitutional change.

John Robertson: This is something I raised in a previous speech on Scotland, but today we have once again heard the chuntering from the SNP, whose Members are sat on the Benches beside me—the bullying tactics that have been used in the Scottish Parliament to stop proper legislation going through. Can we trust these people?

Margaret Curran: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. It encourages me to look forward to the substance of the debate on the referendum, when the Scottish people will give not only their verdict on whether they think their interests lie best in the United Kingdom, but ultimately their view of the SNP Government, who, rather than addressing their interests, are for ever saying that everything can be solved through the prism of independence, without ever presenting a substantial argument for why that would be the case.

Iain Stewart: The hon. Lady touches on an important point about the Scottish Parliament legislating in the interests of Scotland. Does she agree that the Scotland Act 2012 will devolve considerable additional powers over many fiscal matters to the Scottish Parliament, and that it is surely better to concentrate on using those powers rather than constantly trying to change the goal posts constitutionally?

Margaret Curran: The hon. Gentleman makes a significant point. I have always believed in a strong Scotland within the United Kingdom, and I have for many years believed that devolution was significant in helping to govern Scotland effectively. The passing of the 2012 Act was another stage in that process, which offers the Scottish people the opportunity to effectively govern themselves, but still have the advantage of the partnership that is the United Kingdom. I firmly believe that the prospects for separation offered by the Scottish National party do not work in the best interests of the Scottish people, and in fact signify that the SNP has failed to listen to them. Since its inception, they have believed that the Union damages Scotland. Its view has never changed and never evolved. We are all calling for a positive debate, and it is disappointing to see so little of that coming from those Benches this afternoon.

Menzies Campbell: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous. Her felicitous reference to Donald Dewar, a friend and colleague of several of us still in the House today, has struck a chord certainly with me and I am sure with others. Arising from what she has just said, and referring back to something she said earlier, what does she make of the suggestion that were the question to be answered in the negative, that would not be the end of the matter so far as the Scottish National party was concerned, and that if it had the opportunity it might seek, as early as was convenient, to institute yet another referendum, thereby raising the possibility of what I think in Quebec is called the “neverendum”, of which the issue is the only one which dominates political discourse in Scotland?

Margaret Curran: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman—I am so pleased to have got parliamentary protocol right for once. This is one of the most disappointing elements of the debate so far. We have gone to great lengths to create a process that will allow for a fair and established result that should be observed by all participating parties. We have all said that we will respect the decision of the Scottish people, wherever we stand in this debate, and it is incumbent on the SNP to participate in that and to not always say, irrespective of the result, that it will just come back again and again with a “neverendum”, allegedly. Perhaps in today’s debate the SNP will put on record that they will absolutely respect the result of the referendum, now that we are past the starting blocks, and absolutely guarantee that they will respect the wishes of the Scottish people and not forever seek to usurp that decision, as certain comments have seemed to imply.

Jonathan Edwards: Based on what the hon. Lady has just said, if there is a no vote and Labour form the Government down here in 2016 after the general election, is she saying that there will not be any further constitutional change and a further Scotland Act, and that anyone who wants to see progress on greater powers for Scotland will have to vote yes in 2014?

Margaret Curran: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and I look forward to Labour forming a Government here in 2016. We will introduce many pro policies to the benefit of the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom. Of course, we should look at the
	prospect of Scots voting to stay within the United Kingdom, because I believe that there is a strong likelihood of that—although I would never be complacent and would always respect the views of the Scottish people. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), I absolutely believe that devolution is vital to the interests of Scotland and vital to the interests of the United Kingdom. We have always said that devolution is a process, and that time and circumstance will dictate future interests. As the hon. Gentleman may or may not know, Johann Lamont, our leader of the Labour party in Scotland, has set up a devolution commission. Our test in that devolution commission will not be pre-set, as some nationalists would have us do because they have already decided what should happen. Our views will be determined by the interests of the people of Scotland, and what serves their interests best.

Anne McGuire: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fundamental fault line in Scottish politics at the moment is between those who support separation from the rest of the United Kingdom and those who want to stay part of the United Kingdom, and that any talk about the process of devolution and so on in the current context of discussing a referendum on independence is actually a diversionary tactic by the SNP to try to divert us from the fact that after 80 years of preparation, it has zilch to say about the future of Scotland?

Margaret Curran: I thank my hon. Friend for that effective intervention. I will make reference to why some are urging that there should be a second question as I progress.

Mark Lazarowicz: If I can take my hon. Friend back to the intervention by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) from Plaid Cymru, is the situation not entirely the reverse of what he suggests? If people vote no in the referendum—against separation—there will be opportunities to develop devolution and the Scottish Parliament, but if people vote yes to independence, then that is it. There will be no second thoughts—that will be once and for all and final. There should be no doubt whatsoever of the consequence of such a vote.

Margaret Curran: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. May I be absolutely crystal clear? The way to stop devolution in Scotland, in its current form and in any further developments, is to vote for separation. That is the way to end devolution. If people want to continue devolution and have a strong element of devolution in the partnership that is the United Kingdom, they should vote against nationalist wishes in the referendum.
	The referendum offers us the opportunity to settle the question decisively, once and for all. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) said, this is a fault line in Scottish politics—people either support partnership with the United Kingdom or they support separation. We need to settle this once and for all, and then move away from the issue that keeps Alex Salmond awake at night to the concerns that keep our constituents awake at night.
	Let me turn to the order. As the Secretary of State has outlined, article 3 removes the reservation of the power to hold a referendum on the independence of Scotland from the rest of the UK, and stipulates conditions relating to the date of the poll and the nature of the question. On this side of the House, we have argued consistently for a poll that would come earlier than 2014, as has been indicated. As business leaders, civil society and others have said, a vote conducted more than 18 months from now while the country continues to face some of the most testing economic circumstances in a generation, adds, at the very minimum, to the uncertainty faced by the Scottish people.
	We would have sought an earlier poll. However, we understand the challenges faced by Government, the issues around the legislative timeline and the need to provide a full debate. As such, we hope that the period between now and the referendum itself will be used to full advantage. If I can make reference to a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin, I hope that that timeline—the amount of time involved—will ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the maximum time to debate and process this issue. It should also be used to ensure that Scots are provided with a robust and informed debate. So far, Scots are not getting the information to which they are reasonably entitled, even at this stage, by the party proposing separation. There is still much more information to be given by those who are proposing separation. As the protagonists, it is reasonable to expect them to do that.
	Article 3 provides the clarity that the referendum will consist of a single question, as I made reference to in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling. For a decision of this magnitude, we have always believed that this is the only way to provide absolute clarity for the Scottish people. A multi-question referendum, as some on the nationalist Benches have argued for, would not only have led to confusion but, as the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has previously pointed out, would have been out of step with international precedents. It would also have been detrimental had we included a question for which there was no clear offering, in terms of powers to the Scottish Parliament, and no grouping able to make the case where there was no distinct proposal and no clarity about the details of what was being proposed.
	Although the issue concerning the number of questions has been resolved, the order gives the Scottish Parliament the power to set the wording of the question. In this area, we still have several concerns. First, we are not confident that the question proposed by the Scottish Government provides those voting in the referendum with sufficient clarity. Secondly, in the light of that, we are concerned that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have not committed themselves to following the recommendations of the independent, objective Electoral Commission.

Fiona O'Donnell: My hon. Friend is making a reasoned and reasonable contribution. Hansard has sought clarification about whether SNP Members have today been described as “big fearties” or “big fairies”. Would she like to express her opinion?

Margaret Curran: Oh dear, dear, dear! Both. Can I say that? Would that be okay? I do understand it, however, and perhaps I can offer clarification for people. On that basis, I would certainly say both.
	The agreement between the UK and Scottish Governments sets out:
	“Both Governments agree on the importance of the referendum being overseen in an impartial way by bodies that can command the confidence of both sides of the campaign.”
	That is an essential element of the agreement. It is not simply the oversight of the campaign, however, but how the recommendations and views of the Electoral Commission are treated by the Scottish Government that will determine whether the process is seen as impartial by the people of Scotland. If the SNP and the Scottish Government wish to reassure all participants in the referendum that they will conduct it properly, fairly and equitably, with respect to all interests, they could easily offer that reassurance by accepting the wording of the Electoral Commission. That would take us further down the road, so I hope that we can get an offer on that today. Ministers in the SNP Government have to set aside partisan advantage and approach the process with Scotland’s best interests, not their party’s, in mind, and it would be reassuring if they could clarify the matter so as not to be open to that charge. They could easily prove that they are not open to it.
	The Electoral Commission’s role has to extend beyond the wording, however. We accept that the Electoral Management Board will deal with the practical arrangements for the referendum, but, to ensure the probity of the process, the Scottish Government must accept the rulings of the Electoral Commission, not just on the wording but on the key issue of campaign funding. The commission has made known its views on funding, but the Scottish Government are at odds with it. Clearly, we cannot end up in the ridiculous situation where the future of our country is determined by campaigns that have a sum total of 1p to spend per voter over the entire regulated period. We are also concerned that the Scottish Government’s proposed limits would lead to restrictions on the ability of third-party organisations, such as trade unions and businesses, to participate fully in the campaign. As I have said, the length of the campaign offers the opportunity for a full and robust debate on Scotland’s future, and surely an informed and knowledgeable voter is worth more than a penny.
	Although the order will formally pass the relevant powers to the Scottish Parliament, much of the detail about how the referendum will proceed is contained in the memorandum of agreement. The status of this agreement has been the subject of some debate, however, so will the Secretary of State or the Minister confirm the status of the agreement? Does it legally bind the parties concerned? If not, what legal advice have they received regarding its status? We would have preferred the order to contain the level of detail in the memorandum, but we understand the practical considerations involved, and, as I said at the outset, the agreement and order, if taken together and if followed in the spirit and the letter, provide the basis for a fair, legal and decisive referendum. People in Scotland will not look kindly on any attempt to ignore or wilfully reinterpret the agreement or on any party playing party politics with that. Understandably, that would be seen as cynical and disingenuous.
	With this order, we come one step closer to the 2014 referendum and an historic decision for the people of Scotland. The tone and tenor of our debate have to match the aspirations we have for it, so we have to move
	away from the confusion and muddle that have characterised too much of the discussion so far, grasp the nettle and deal with the difficult and challenging issues facing Scotland. That is what the Labour party is doing and will continue to do. The debate cannot simply be an accountancy exercise; it must be a debate where we lay out our alternative visions for the future of Scotland and its people; and a debate that meets the aspirations of generations of Labour advocates of devolution.
	If I may make further reference to Donald Dewar, let me say that introspection will not solve our problems, and nor will a preoccupation with constitutional points scoring. Responding to the needs of the Scottish people is what matters. In passing the order, we will pass another milestone towards a referendum in which the Scottish people will have their say on whether to break with a partnership of 300 years or continue in the family of nations that is the United Kingdom. “Section 30” is a technical term and will not grab the imagination of too many Scots, but it will usher in a debate of enormous magnitude in which the future of families, industries, services and much else will be at stake. Today is the clarion call to get on with the substance of the issues and to determine the arguments that look to the future of that great country of Scotland.

Charles Kennedy: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute what I anticipate to be briefly to this debate and in support of the opening Front-Bench speeches, which I think we have all appreciated, to a greater or lesser extent.
	I begin with a personal, if perhaps philosophical, point: I have never had any difficulty, during my career or personal and private life, with the fundamental distinction —a decent, honourable and everyday distinction—between those of us who consider ourselves lifelong nationalistic Scots and those who fundamentally consider themselves political nationalists. One thing that surprises me, not altogether but somewhat, is the coyness at home from within the nationalist camp about the debate—which will, one hopes, be given further impetus by the passing of the order—and how it will develop and what will happen, depending on the outcome of a referendum. That seems rather to miss the point. To a nationalistic Scot, putting the issue of independence fairly and squarely in front of the electorate in a referendum and, in those time-honoured words, hoping for a legal, fair and decisive outcome, is a perfectly legitimate, democratic and honourable thing to do.
	Equally, however, just as those of us who are still deeply committed to electoral reform—despite last year’s massive setback in losing the referendum so decisively—are not going to give up our belief in electoral reform, so political nationalists are not going to give up their beliefs, and why should they? I have lifelong friends—not active in politics—who have voted SNP come hell and high water. It might be high water now, but there have been days of hell, as all political parties have experienced over the decades. Who knows? Those days might come round again.
	The First Minister’s statement that the referendum would settle the issue for a generation was an interesting, if perhaps unnecessary, one—something of a hostage to
	fortune. I hope that it will settle the issue for a generation—in the minds of most Scots I think that it will, if the referendum is seen to be legal, fair and decisive—but, in the mind and the heart of a political nationalist, it cannot be the final word on the matter. It will be a never-ending referendum, given that the nationalist cat is out of the bag, and we have to be honest about that with the people of Scotland. The Scottish national party has to be a bit more upfront with the people of Scotland to that effect as well. Either that, or the party signs up to the words of the First Minister, when as party leader several years ago he said that the referendum would, at the very least, settle the matter for a political generation. That would be in the best interests of Scotland, the body politic and the long-term economic prospects of the country. This afternoon provides a very good opportunity for SNP Members to subscribe to the words of their own leader, now First Minister of Scotland, and to create a degree of calm and assuredness on the other side of the referendum, whatever the result.

Fiona O'Donnell: rose—

Charles Kennedy: I am happy to give way to my old sparring partner.

Fiona O'Donnell: We will be sparring again on Saturday night in a Burns supper at Lochaber high school. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he thinks the SNP turned down the offer from Wendy Alexander to “bring it on” in the last term of the Scottish Parliament?

Charles Kennedy: Over many years, the more I have heard from successive honourable and very good friends, such as those sitting on the SNP Benches right now, the less I have sought to try to explain anything on behalf of political nationalists. That, I think, is altogether a bridge too far. I have had a hard enough time over 30 years trying to explain the Social Democrat party, the alliance, the Liberal Democrats, the meaning of federalism and all the rest of it, without taking on additional baggage that is, I am glad to say, somebody else’s responsibility.
	My second point relates to the issue of the nature of the Scotland that we have now, and what that should tell us, as we pass this order, about the conduct of the debate—the factual and political debate that will ensue. Like others who were in this Chamber at the time, I am reminded of the dog days of the Thatcher and then the Major Administrations, who set their faces like flint against any prospect of Scottish devolution, despite it being
	“the settled will of the Scottish people”,
	as the late great John Smith said, as evinced through vote after vote in ballot box after ballot box over election after election the length and breadth of the country. The best we got was the charade of a travelling circus, courtesy of Michael Forsyth, called the Scottish Grand Committee, which would jet into Stornoway and jet out after a few hours, having shed little in the way of light on matters. In fact, as time went on and parts of Scotland got more wise to what was happening, it generated a well-organised local or regional demo at the expense of the Conservative Government on the issues of the day that were pertinent to the borders, the Western Isles, the highlands or wherever.
	As that went on, and as all three political parties experienced that frustration, I think we were against what we saw as the undemocratic control of Scotland and certainly the deeply unhealthy centralisation of power here in London. An awful lot of us voted yes with enthusiasm for devolution and welcomed the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, although—I will be honest—we never anticipated, particularly under the voting system used, that one day a majority SNP Government would be returned. I congratulate SNP Members on that historic breakthrough. We also never anticipated that a majority SNP Government in Holyrood would display the self-same centralist tendencies that were the hallmark of the Thatcher and Major Administrations. In particular, those who represented parts of Scotland outside the central belt in the outlying parts of Scotland—I know that this feeling is shared by some right hon. and hon. Members representing central belt constituencies, too, not least as far as local authorities are concerned—did not anticipate or vote for a devolutionary process that was transferring over-centralised power in the south-east of England to over-centralised power in Holyrood and across the central belt of Scotland.

Malcolm Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend share the concern of my—and, I expect, his—constituents about how effectively we will be policed in future with the absence of a highland or Grampian constabulary and a police force centralised in the central belt?

Charles Kennedy: I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I must not—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The right hon. Gentleman anticipates my comments. While his resumé of historical progress towards this point has been fascinating, I need him to come back to the contents of the order rather than to venture into wider political discussion.

Charles Kennedy: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My central point, which is directly relevant to what I have been saying, is that, as has been pointed out, this order is historic, following on as it does from the 1988 Act. Why? It is historic because it transfers and devolves a fundamental, absolute and substantial power to Holyrood and to the Government of the day who have the majority in Holyrood. In so doing, we must look at the lessons of the past five years, because Holyrood—and, in particular, the SNP Government at Holyrood—having been handed this power, must handle it with a far greater sense of decentralisation and recognition of a Scotland that is much more diverse and not just centred on the interests of one political party and one political source of power. That is why, I believe, the decision we seem to be reaching unanimously this evening is so pertinent. It provides an important caveat that needs to go on the record.
	Let us look to how Holyrood is going to handle this matter. Others, not least the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) with her 12 years of experience in the Scottish Parliament, are much better versed in these matters than me. As an interested Scot looking at recent developments in Holyrood, however, I would have to say that any fair-minded person cannot be that encouraged by what we have seen so far. Two senior Ministers, the First Minister and his deputy who is now
	taking over control of constitutional affairs, have at the very least—I put this as mildly as I can in the spirit of unanimity that seems to be abroad across the Chamber this afternoon—given every impression, until caught out, of being willing to play somewhat fast and loose with authenticity and the correct version of events. That applies not just to their political competitors and opponents, but to the Scottish people. That sense will not serve them well and it will not serve well the process being taken on or the responsibility that goes with it when the House passes this order.
	We have all had our years of political girn—first as far as Westminster itself is concerned and now from the Government in Holyrood where Westminster is still concerned. We are moving from that into the politics of fundamental choice. This is obviously a necessary, welcome and historic order. Let me pay great tribute not only to the calm, constructive and measured way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has handled this matter on behalf of the coalition Government here, but to the modicum of maturity and reasonableness that he has brought to the debate both this afternoon and over recent months. That characteristic contribution will well serve all of Scotland and the electoral democratic process, as the next year to 18 months of debate unfolds.
	We are moving towards the politics of choice. As we are trying to make life hard, at least for the Hansard reportersthis afternoon, let me say that the responsibility will transfer to Holyrood in due course—and a great responsibility it is—and most of all, in being entrusted with that responsibility, Holyrood must not turn a stooshie into a stramash.

Alistair Darling: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy); I agree with just about everything he has said this afternoon. I shall not talk so much about the merits of the debate on independence, but deal with some procedural matters. Before I do so, let me say two things. First, depending on when the winding-up speeches occur, I may be absent from the Chamber. I shall try not to be, but I apologise if I am. Secondly, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, not least to the fact that I am a director of Better Together—a company formed for the purposes of fighting in the referendum campaign. In the light of what I have to say, that may be of some relevance.
	As I said, I do not want to talk about the merits of the independence debate, as there will be plenty of opportunities for others to do so. I would like to talk, however, about the central role of the Electoral Commission. As has been observed by both the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber and the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), by virtue of passing the motion we are passing all responsibility and authority from this House to the Scottish Parliament. There is absolutely nothing wrong in that; I support that. In practice, the transfer is not just to the Scottish Parliament but to the SNP, which runs the thing as a pretty tight ship—opposition is not usually tolerated—and not just to the SNP, because, as we know, the SNP is very much run by one individual. We need to be aware that that is what we are doing.
	I want to concentrate on the role of the Electoral Commission. I agree with those Members who have said that it is important not only that the referendum is conducted fairly but that it is seen and accepted to have been fairly conducted. Whatever the result, we want to be in a position where we accept that Scotland had its say and reached its verdict, and then let us abide by that. I know that the First Minister said that the referendum would settle the matter for a generation, but I think he meant that that would be the case if he won; if our side won, he might take a different view. The observations of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber on that point are absolutely right.
	On the franchise, I do not object in principle to 16 and 17-year-olds having the vote, although if they are going to vote on this matter, they should be allowed to vote on everything else; otherwise it is inconsistent. I cannot help but think that they would never have been allowed anywhere near a ballot paper if the SNP had not at some stage thought that they were more likely to vote for it, although the emerging evidence is that that is not necessarily so. Most of us know that whether someone who has just turned 18 is on the register rather depends on how diligent their mother and father were in getting them on it. If those who are now 15 and 16 are to get on the register by the time the vote takes place, electoral registration officers in Scotland will have to do an awful lot more than they do currently. It would be a real pity if a lot of people who have newly turned 16 and 17 went to the polling station only to be told, “Sorry, you are not on the register.”
	Other Members raised the issue of troops who are fighting elsewhere, and that position should be accommodated. I understand why the franchise must be on the basis of that which we currently use to elect the Scottish Parliament, although it is unfortunate that someone who happens to live in Edinburgh and goes to work in Brussels can get an overseas vote, but if they happen to be sent to London, they cannot. That will cause some ill feeling. The hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) raised the point, but I think there are limits to what we can do.
	I want to touch on two issues in relation to the Electoral Commission: the question itself; and the campaign spending limits. My view is that the Electoral Commission should act as the referee, and I hope that it will go for a question that is clear and simply understood, without cant or tilt one way or another. There are those who say, “Everyone will know what they are voting on when they go to the polling station,” and perhaps they will, but in that case there is no reason to have a slanted question. Any impartial observer would say that the question proposed by the Scottish Government is slanted. People on both sides have mentioned the problem that the SNP is the player and the referee at one and the same time, which does not strike me as fair. I hope that it will accept what the Electoral Commission has to say on the wording of the question.
	It is noteworthy that the agreement signed by both sides last October explicitly says that the UK Government
	“regards the guidance of the Electoral Commission as a key consideration”
	and goes on to say that the UK Government have so far followed that advice. It then says that in the event of a
	departure from the Electoral Commission’s advice, there would have to be stated reasons. That suggests that both parties were clear that the Electoral Commission’s role was impartial, and that there was an assumption that they would accept whatever it proposes. It is, therefore, disappointing that before the ink was dry on the signatures, we heard from senior members of the SNP that the Electoral Commission could say what it wanted, but it would ultimately be the SNP’s call. That would be unfortunate, in relation to both the wording of the question and the spending limits.
	We have not had many referendums in this country, but the turnout in them has been pretty poor: the average is just over 50%. It would be a great pity if the biggest decision Scotland will ever make—whether to stay in the United Kingdom or to leave—was taken on a low turnout. On both sides of the argument, one challenge will be to engage and hold the attention of the Scottish public and enthuse people to come and vote in October 2014, which is one reason I hope we can concentrate on the merits of the respective arguments rather than anything else. Even in the Scottish elections, the average turnout is just over 50%. The turnout in the alternative vote referendum was only 42% —no surprise there, some might say. It is not exactly a harbinger of good things to come. By contrast, international referendums have a much higher turnout: 95% in Quebec in 2005.
	If we are to engage people in Scotland, make the referendum a success, and ensure a respectable turnout so that there is a clear mandate, that involves spending some money. We cannot fight such campaigns on fresh air. Everybody in the Chamber knows that parties must spend money in elections, but the Scottish Government’s proposals will mean that the ability of both campaigns to spend money to engage people’s attention will be severely curtailed. Even the Electoral Commission’s proposals are quite a restriction, in comparison to what was allowed to be spent in the 1997 referendum. I hope that the Electoral Commission will continue reconsidering these matters and recognise that while nobody likes the idea of spending lots of money on a referendum campaign —I am not arguing for so much money that we have television adverts and American-style campaigning—the basics such as sending out leaflets to people and raising awareness of the issues are very important.
	I understand well why the SNP has made proposals that would severely curtail such spending—it looked at its position, and everybody else’s, and thought, “We are in charge, why not move it to benefit us?” That really is not satisfactory, however, especially when we bear in mind that the Scottish Government enter into the purdah period, it would appear, only a month before the contest. We have only to look at what has been going on in the last couple of years. The Scottish Government and the SNP seem to be one and the same thing when it comes to the referendum—the entire effort of the Scottish Government is now being directed towards the referendum. I am afraid that I do not have confidence that the permanent secretary at the Scotland Office will have any control over the SNP. I suspect that, even if he gets round to raising the odd word of concern, he will be told in no uncertain terms where to go. Public money is being used on one side, and those of us on the other side who have to raise the money ourselves will find it very difficult to compete, especially in the last four months of the campaign.

Charles Kennedy: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman —who, in Better Together terms, is my right hon. Friend—for giving way. What he says about the current governance of Scotland, against the very long referendum backdrop, is undoubtedly true. As he will probably know from the inside, and as I experienced from the outside during the period of Prime Minister Blair’s leadership, in private discussion in which I tried in those days to encourage him to go down the route of a referendum on a single currency and on what proved to be the dead duck of the proposed European constitution, in both cases he said that he had taken advice from previous Labour Government figures who were still around and who remembered the experience of the European referendum of years ago, and from the top of the civil service. Both sources of advice were unanimous on one point: in Westminster or Whitehall terms, a referendum would suspend the normal business of government for about six months. Look at what the referendum under discussion has done already and how much worse it is liable to get if the timely warnings of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) are not heeded.

Alistair Darling: I do not think that I was always party to the advice taken by my friend and former colleague Tony Blair, but I do remember something of the discussions, and the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we are the best of friends as far as Better Together is concerned. We may have parted company on the single currency 10 years ago, but we probably would not do so now. We are all friends when it comes to the single currency, and who knows? That may even include the nationalists.

Ian Davidson: In respect of the single currency, I expect that my right hon. Friend, like me, welcomes the fact that the House is full of sinners who have repented.

Alistair Darling: I fear that we are about to exhaust your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend is probably right.
	I think that in a contest such as this, the Scottish public will expect to see fair play. It would be unfortunate if, during those four months, the Scottish Government were allowed to spend money here, there and everywhere, with Ministers making announcements—and it is, after all, our money—while those on the other side were completely hamstrung. There are very strict restrictions on campaigns, on other political parties, and, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), on trade unions, voluntary organisations, businesses and so on. I consider that to be unfortunate not because I want vast sums to be spent—in some ways, it is best to keep expenditure as low as possible—but because I think that we need to spend some money if we want a good turnout, and if we want to assuage people’s thirst for information.

Pete Wishart: rose—

Alistair Darling: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that thirst for information has been evident, not least in his constituency last week. If he would care to turn up to one or two meetings, he would be asked quite a few questions which I think that he and his colleagues need to answer.

Pete Wishart: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, who was busy spreading his anti-independence message, I was here in the House last week to vote against the Conservative Government’s Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill.
	The right hon. Gentleman may have heard the Secretary of State speak on “The Politics Show” last Sunday about the preparations being made by the UK Government and the amount of paper that would be generated in the form of what he confirmed would be pieces of Unionist propaganda effectively talking down any case for Scottish independence. It is not the Scottish Government who are spending money on this; it is the UK Government.

Alistair Darling: What irritated members of the SNP so much last week was that wherever I went in Scotland more and more questions were asked about them, and as that fact became more and more widely reported, it really did rile them.
	As for what the UK Government are doing, they will be producing a series of papers on key matters such as European Union membership. The hon. Gentleman cannot blame them for doing that, given that last autumn his own party got into a terrible muddle when it turned out that the legal advice to the effect that nothing would change did not even exist. If the hon. Gentleman will not answer the question, who is to stop someone else from answering it?
	Right at the end of the year—and it will not be until the end of the year—the SNP will produce its own White Paper. There will be a degree of balance between the two sides, and people will be able to pick and choose what they believe. Let me get my retaliation in first, and say that if the SNP’s White Paper is anything like the other material that it has produced on this subject, it could well be nominated for the Booker prize for fiction next year. Anyway, my basic point is that both campaigns must be funded adequately to ensure that there can be a proper and thorough debate.
	I support the order. This is the right thing to do: no one can have any quarrel with that. I just hope that as these matters are discussed in the Scottish Parliament, people will go out of their way to ensure that the process is impartial, and that, in particular, the Electoral Commission will be allowed to act as a genuine referee. It should make the calls. It will probably disappoint both sides from time to time, but it is better for someone independent to hold the ring than for one of the participants to do so.

Rory Stewart: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and my colleagues for allowing me to contribute to the debate. I feel that it is very difficult for someone who represents an English constituency to speak about this subject.
	I want briefly to discuss three questions. First, should there be a referendum at all? Secondly, what are the criteria on which we should determine whether there should be a referendum? Thirdly—this takes up a point raised in the powerful speech of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling)—why do we need more investment in information, and, in particular, the spending of more money on media debates?
	The question of whether there should be a referendum is a very big issue. Traditionally, we have not had proper procedures for constitutional change in Britain. The reason this question is so important is that it matters not just in relation to Scotland, but in relation to every constitutional change introduced in this country. Britain is the only advanced democracy left in the world—in fact, almost the only country left in the world—that does not formally distinguish between constitutional law and normal law, and tries to introduce constitutional change by means of simple majorities in Parliament. That cannot be right. Every other country recognises that the constitution exists to protect the people from the Parliament: to protect them from us. We cannot, with shifting single majorities, set about changing the thing that protects the people, which is why every country from America to Italy to Greece to Spain demands super-majorities, constitutional assemblies or referendums.
	The answer to the second question—why should we have a referendum about this issue?—is also extremely important, and it too relates to what was said by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West. It involves the very difficult issue of how political institutions such as this Parliament—this building—can define an entire identity. A serious problem with some of the arguments advanced by supporters of the Scottish National party is the way in which they have tried to trivialise the issue. They have tried to suggest that it does not really matter, and that it is possible to get rid of a single Parliament without anything really changing. My constituents are often told that nothing will change, although 12,000 of them registered as Scots in the census and more than 50% of telephone calls made from Carlisle are made to people in Scotland.
	In fact, everything we know from every country in the world suggests that the fundamental, defining feature of identity is a political institution. Much more than ethnicity, much more than culture, political institutions keep people together, which is why we must have a referendum.
	How do we know that? Well, I know it from my own constituency, because Cumbria was itself a nation. It was a kingdom. For 700 years, Cumbria and Northumbria ruled the kingdom that stretched from Edinburgh in the north to Sheffield in the south. Why does Cumbria not have an identity that crosses the border today? Because it is no longer a political entity. It no longer has a Parliament, and it no longer has a king. Why are French people in France different from French people in Switzerland? For one reason only: their Parliaments split. Why has Britain grown apart from the Commonwealth countries to which it was so close 50 or 60 years ago? Because the political institutions split.
	Scotland itself is another example. Why is it a nation? That is a difficult question to answer. Scotland has had Norwegians in the north, Welsh Celts around Strathclyde, Irish sea raiders, and Anglians coming into Lothian. The one thing that holds it together is the community of the realm. It is the political institution that creates the nation. We in Cumbria know why that matters in Britain. Cumbria was a centre point of horror because two Parliaments and two kingdoms split apart. That border created the monstrosity.
	That leads me to the question of why more money needs to be invested in the campaign, and why we need more media investigation. The answer is that the issue of political institutions and Parliaments is difficult, and perhaps even boring. It is not stuff that gets people excited. People voting in a referendum will find it hard to follow all the issues without an enormous amount of information. The Scottish National party is, of course, right to say that some of the prophets of doom who suggest that independence will lead to the end of the world are wrong. Independence will not lead to the end of the world, and that is why information matters.
	Independence will not cause the war between England and Scotland to start again. Those days of savagery, murder, pillage and rape—what we saw in Cumbria for 400 years—will not return, because the world has changed. Nor will Scotland or England become a failed state. Scotland and England are extremely advanced, educated countries, each with its world-class businesses, and although both may undergo a process of difficulty and insecurity, they will subsequently be able to adjust and thrive. That is not the problem; the problem is something much more difficult and much more elusive, which anyone voting in a Scottish referendum needs to understand but will not be able to understand unless we invest money in enabling the subject to be discussed as openly as possible. That is the importance of political institutions. It is a question of understanding, as we understand in this House, why this place matters. Why does it matter that Scottish and English MPs sit together in a single Parliament? It matters because it provides the formal process for mutual consideration.
	The SNP is again absolutely correct that, theoretically, there is nothing to stop Scotland being friendly to England or England being friendly to Scotland in the absence of a joint Parliament. There is no reason, theoretically, why an English MP could not take into account Scotland’s interests when thinking about their constituency in relation to common agricultural reform or agricultural subsidies, for instance. There is no reason, theoretically, why a Scottish MP in an independent Scotland could not think about England’s nuclear interests when considering the positioning of submarine bases. In practice, however, it is the formal elements of this Chamber and our Committees and Government that force us to think about each other.
	I sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee. It matters that the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy) attends that Committee day in and day out, forcing the Foreign Office to answer questions that relate to Scotland. Instead of having to rely on good will, we have created institutions. Those institutions bring together much better people, too.

Fiona O'Donnell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that good will is under threat, as well as the institutions? What would be the effect on his constituents of an independent Scotland having a substantially lower corporation tax rate than England?

Rory Stewart: That is a good question, and there are many other similar questions we might ask. It is easy to come up with hypothetical examples—such as that corporation tax point—of ways in which people could grow apart, but the key point is that, without a United
	Kingdom, there will be no formal processes and incentives to think through such matters. At present, however, we create the forums.
	I am only three months married, so I hesitate to say this as I do not know what on earth I am talking about, but it strikes me that formal institutions such as marriage force people to discuss things, to compromise and to think in ways that we might not if that formal institution were not in place. [Interruption.] Perhaps I am wrong about that, however. It was foolish of me to hold forth on the importance of that institution on the basis of just three months of married life.
	The institution of the United Kingdom and its Parliament has four key benefits. The first of them is that it brings people together. Over more than 400 years it has brought together incredibly talented people, including people we barely recognise as being Scots or English, who would not have come together if we had not had a United Kingdom. It has brought together leaders of all our parties. We often forget that Scotland produced not just the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), but also William Gladstone and, indeed, the crofter’s grandson, Harold Macmillan. Scotland produced the ideas, the culture and the nation that challenges England and makes the United Kingdom better. Scotland played an important part in creating not just our modern economic theory, but the ideas behind the national health service, and also all the richness of the culture of Britain. Because we have this United Kingdom and this shared institution of Parliament, as our different strengths alter over time, we contain that within a single unity. There was a time when Scottish novels were better than English novels. There was a time when—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I absolutely understand that the hon. Gentleman is setting his major argument in context, and I was following what he was saying, but he is going on a little too long about the context. Please will he return to the subject of the order itself?

Rory Stewart: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will accelerate towards my conclusion, which involves returning to a very good point made by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West.
	All the issues I have raised are extremely complicated. They are issues of history, of culture and of identity. They are issues of the ways in which borders work and parliamentary institutions function. In order for people to be able to vote properly in a referendum and make that simple yes or no choice for which the SNP is pushing, the debate needs to be widened much further. More money needs to be spent, and the media need to get involved. At present the media are far too worried about not being political on one side or the other and are therefore not setting out the arguments and creating the debate powerfully enough. We need to have a proper debate because if an Englishman, a Scotsman and a Welshman together is a joke, an Englishman or a Scotsman on their own is a tragedy.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before we proceed, it might be helpful if I explain my approach to this debate. I expect Members to refer to
	the order, as that is what we are discussing. I understand that they may want to touch briefly on context or history, but I do not want us to drift away from the issues before us in this very important debate. I have tried to have a very light touch so far, because I loathe interrupting Members. If Members are helpful, I will be eternally grateful; if not, I will, with regret, have to interrupt them.

Angus Robertson: Today’s proceedings are historic, and it is important to stress that, notwithstanding the din and smoke of political battle and some of the differences and questions aired today, they represent a triumph for democracy, for the democratic process and for a democratic mandate. So far as I am aware, every political party in this House is in agreement about the section 30 order, so I will focus on what we, as democrats, all share: respect for the electorate’s right to determine their governance. There can be no greater democratic choice than whether a people wish their nation to determine for itself how it is to be governed.
	If we take half a step back from our party politics, we can see that it is truly remarkable that, notwithstanding our differences, we will today agree that it is for the Scottish Parliament to take forward the arrangements for an independence referendum in 2014. That is remarkable for two stand-out reasons. First, Scotland’s constitutional progress has been a model of democratic, peaceful and civic politics. Secondly, the UK Government and Opposition are endorsing a legal, ordered and democratic path that can lead to Scotland becoming a sovereign state. Today’s agreement to transfer legal powers to the Scottish Parliament to make the arrangements for the biggest decision in 300 years is a huge milestone. It says much about the potential for further respect and equality between the Governments, Parliaments and peoples of these islands.
	How have we reached the point of having this section 30 order? The Secretary of State rightly said the key is undoubtedly the result of the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections. The majority of Members returned, including those of the Scottish National party and the Scottish Green Party and the independent MSP Margo MacDonald, support Scottish independence. The scale of the victory was unprecedented. The SNP won every single mainland constituency seat in the highlands, every single constituency in Grampian and Tayside, and the majority of constituency seats in Fife, Lothian, Central, Glasgow and the west of Scotland. In the list vote, the SNP received more votes than the three UK parties combined and was first in all but three constituencies in the whole of Scotland. The result was so overwhelming that the leaders of all three UK parties in the Scottish Parliament resigned.
	Given the scale of the victory, the parliamentary majority and the commitment to holding a referendum, it would be unimaginable in a 21st century democracy not to be able to proceed with a referendum. The UK Government clearly understood that the Scottish Government would go ahead with a referendum, and the Scottish Government understood the advantages of an unambiguous process beyond any potential legal challenge. This shared understanding led to the historic Edinburgh agreement between the Governments, which was signed by the First Minister and the Prime Minister on 15 October 2012, and which has led to the section 30 order we expect will pass without Division today.
	The key is to understand that, as far as I am aware, everybody has signed up to the Edinburgh agreement. First, they have agreed that the referendum will be made in Scotland, with the arrangements to be finalised in the Scottish Parliament. The fact that the agreement could be reached showed that the Governments can work together, truly in everybody’s interest, notwithstanding that we have different views on the potential outcome. The Scottish Parliament is the cockpit of the nation, and it is right that the issues of the franchise, the question, the referendum rules and the campaign spending limits should be scrutinised and taken forward there. Nobody has yet criticised the fact that the Government who introduced the legislation for the devolution referendum were in exactly the same situation as the Scottish Parliament will be after the section 30 order is passed.

Jim McGovern: The issue of the referendum question has been raised a couple of times. What will the SNP’s view, or that of the Scottish Government, be on the Electoral Commission’s advice? Will that advice be accepted or ignored?

Angus Robertson: The Scottish Government will be in exactly the same position as the UK Government are and have been in, including when the hon. Gentleman’s party was in government; the Scottish Government will listen to the advice of the Electoral Commission and the Scottish Parliament will then decide. The arrangement is exactly how it was in the past when his party was in government.

Alistair Darling: What the hon. Gentleman has said so far is absolutely right, but there is one further thing to say: the UK Government have always followed the Electoral Commission’s advice. We would be interested to know whether the SNP is likely to take the same position.

Angus Robertson: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will make his voice heard and that when the section 30 order is passed for Scotland, he will make those views clear. If he had a problem with what is being proposed, he would be opposing this evening’s section 30 order.

Jim McGovern: Will the SNP heed the advice?

Angus Robertson: Of course the Scottish Government will listen to the Electoral Commission’s advice.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Angus Robertson: Now I will make progress.
	The referendum will be carried out with Scottish electoral professionals running the vote and announcing the result. That will be co-ordinated through the Electoral Management Board for Scotland and regulated by the Electoral Commission. The poll will, therefore, be beyond reproach. As the Edinburgh agreement says, it will
	“meet the highest standards of fairness, transparency and propriety, informed by consultation and independent expert advice.”
	The Electoral Commission is included in that. It is in everybody’s interests that this referendum is carried out to the highest standards possible.
	I am particularly pleased that the agreement opens to the way to the franchise for 16 and 17-year-olds. That is not a new proposal; I was pleased to make my maiden speech in the House in 2001 on this very subject. Many of us, from across the parties, have a long-standing commitment to 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote, and I am pleased that they will be able to do so. It is absolutely correct that every endeavour should be made to ensure that everybody who should be enfranchised is able to cast their vote.
	Perhaps surprisingly, I would like to pay tribute to the UK Government. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of State in the Scotland Office and their colleagues across government. Again perhaps surprisingly, I also pay tribute to the Labour Front-Bench team and the Opposition, both here and in the Scottish Parliament. I do so for the part they have all played in getting us this far. No doubt, the questions that have been raised will be pursued after the section 30 order is passed, and that is a good thing. We should all be proud to have reached this stage, and the House will not be surprised that SNP Members express our thanks to the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and Bruce Crawford MSP for the leading parts they have played in securing the Edinburgh agreement.
	Soon, all the procedural issues flowing from the section 30 order will be resolved in the Scottish Parliament and we can have the full debate on the proposition that Scotland should again become a sovereign nation.

Margaret Curran: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm tribute; I did not anticipate saying that, but I appreciate the tribute. May I ask him to clarify something? As I understand it, the logic of what he is explaining is that it is now for the Scottish Parliament to answer the issues of substance that have been raised today. However, it is reasonable for me, as a Scottish person and as an elected Member representing Scots, to ask him whether he thinks it is reasonable to ask the Scottish Government now to clarify that they will respect and adhere to the recommendation of the Electoral Commission. May I have a direct answer on that?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. May I just remind all Members participating in this debate, including the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), that, tempting as it is to talk to each other, they are supposed to be addressing the entire Chamber by addressing the Chair? That means not having one’s back to the Chair when speaking.

Angus Robertson: I am grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I have said twice, I look forward to the Scottish Government having the process taken forward with the advice of the Electoral Commission. I am sure that it will be listened to very closely, because we want to ensure that the process continues.

Rory Stewart: I just wish to clarify the hon. Gentleman’s statement. He is saying that his party intends to listen to the advice of the Electoral Commission but will not necessarily commit, at this moment, to taking and following its advice. Is that correct—yes or no?

Angus Robertson: The position will be exactly the same as that of the UK Government: the Scottish Government will listen to the Electoral Commission’s advice and the Scottish Parliament will then decide.

Gordon Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Angus Robertson: I will not give way again, as I have already made the point three times on the same question.
	Before having to reiterate the same answer for the third time, I was making the point that the procedural issues flowing from the section 30 order will be resolved in the Scottish Parliament, and that is a good thing. That proposition that Scotland should be a sovereign nation has a long and honourable tradition. In this House, it goes back to long before the permanent parliamentary representation of the Scottish National party, which began in 1967, or indeed before the arrival of the first SNP MP in 1945. It is worth remembering the role of Robert Cunninghame Graham, who was elected as a Liberal MP for North West Lanarkshire in 1886 and was commonly described as the first socialist MP in this House. As the founder and first president of the Scottish Labour party, and the first president of the Scottish National party, he consistently supported independence.
	The call for a direct Scottish voice in the world has a long tradition, too. It includes the attempts by the Scottish Trades Union Congress to secure Scottish representation at the Versailles peace talks. For more than 75 years, the SNP has sought to restore Scottish independence through the democratic process. I am extremely proud to follow a great many outstanding democrats who furthered the cause of Scottish self-determination—a vision for all in Scotland, regardless of where we come from. Sadly, some true giants of that movement have recently passed away and will not be here for the referendum, including Jimmy Halliday, the SNP chairman during the 1950s, who passed away just before Christmas. I also reflect on the recent passing of Stephen Maxwell and that a few years ago of Professor Sir Neil MacCormick. I would have wished them all to have been here to be a part of this great debate and decision that we will make in Scotland. We genuinely stand on the shoulders of giants: those who have made the case for self-government and given their time and effort to make progress through the democratic process. This section 30 order is a testament to all who believe in the democratic process, democratic debate and the sovereignty of the people. Our challenge—this is for those on both sides of the referendum debate—is to ensure we do this in a way worthy of the proposition, the opposing case and, most importantly, the electorate.
	In conclusion, I believe that the best future for the people of Scotland—a fairer, more economically successful, more outward-looking and internationally engaged Scotland—will be secured by a yes vote in the referendum. I believe we can secure an improved relationship on these islands, based on mutual respect and the social union, which is not dependent on where Governments and Parliaments sit. Let us pass this section 30 order today so that we move on to debate that vision and so that the people make their decision.

Malcolm Bruce: I welcome the debate and the order. I appreciated the tone of much of what the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) had to say, as well as the fact that he acknowledged that the order has all-party support. I would not have guaranteed 12 or 18 months ago that we would have reached this point, and so I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I believe that he—to some extent, he in particular—has led the process in a way that has taken us from a situation that might have been confrontational to one that has been consensual. The fact that we have achieved that and that both Governments have come together is something that history will record as absolutely right.
	We are, of course, passing the power and the legal right to hold the referendum to the Scottish Parliament, which means, as the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) has pointed out, that we are effectively passing them to the First Minister and the Scottish National party. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) asked earlier what influence this Parliament would have over the process once the order had been passed and the Scottish Parliament had control, I must record that from a sedentary position the hon. Member for Moray said, “Zero.” We must recognise that there is an indication that the SNP will seek to run the agenda to get the best outcome for its purposes. Of course, I completely accept that the SNP, as a political party for which independence is the driving force, wishes to do that, but I warn SNP Members about how they conduct themselves in that process.
	We all noted the responses to a number of interventions on the hon. Member for Moray, which used what I shall not call weasel words but what were certainly evasive words and suggested that the SNP would listen to, but not necessarily act on, the advice of the Electoral Commission. Once we have passed the order, the SNP has the right to listen to and not act on that advice, but if it does that the people of Scotland will rightly have a deep suspicion that they are not being given a fair and clear choice. I believe that that will go against the SNP’s interests, so my advice is that the more we all work to ensure that the referendum is fair and objective, the more we will all be able to live with the result.
	I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Skye, Lochaber and Ross—

Charles Kennedy: Ross, Skye and Lochaber.

Malcolm Bruce: I had all the right places, but not in the right order—a bit like Morecombe and Wise’s piano notes. My right hon. Friend’s point is valid: of course nationalists will continue to fight for Scottish independence, whatever the outcome of the referendum, but I do not think that Scotland or the United Kingdom wants years of wrangling that prevents us from getting on with the business of working together to deliver results. It is in everybody’s interests, once we have taken the decision in 2014, that we should live with the consequences for at least a political generation. Indeed, the SNP would need to reflect on changing its relationship with the United Kingdom. Now, it tries to discredit anything and everything done in the name of the United Kingdom in order to further the case for breaking the
	link, but I believe there will come a point at which the SNP might have to acknowledge that the people of Scotland, if they decide to remain in the United Kingdom, will want their politicians to take a constructive rather than destructive role within the United Kingdom.

Jim Shannon: As an Ulster Scot who has seen the strong relationship between Scotland and Northern Ireland—the English and Welsh have such a relationship, too—may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he feels it is important that the campaign and referendum should focus on nuclear power, which affects the whole United Kingdom, the MOD bases, the Army and sterling and monetary matters as well as fishing rights, which affect people in Northern Ireland, and North sea oil? All those issues are important not just to Scotland but to the whole of the United Kingdom. For that reason, they should think very clearly in Scotland before the decision is made.

Malcolm Bruce: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I shall take note of your encouragement, Madam Deputy Speaker, not to go into too much detail, but of course this is a decision that will be taken in Scotland and in which the whole United Kingdom has an interest. I think we have moved on. When the Prime Minister intervened on this issue 12 months ago, he was initially criticised for interfering in Scottish domestic affairs, but people quickly recognised that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has a legitimate interest in the future of the United Kingdom and the right to take part in the debate. It is equally true that the decision on the future of Scotland must be taken in Scotland through a process made in Scotland, which is why we are discussing the order today.
	I and my political party have been almost obsessed with the progress of home rule towards federalism for my whole lifetime. Indeed, if we look back across the history of the Liberal party we can see that has been the case for at least 100 years or even, in the case of Irish home rule, 150 years. We not only can but probably have bored people with a considerable amount of detail. That detail proved extremely useful in the process of developing the Scotland Bill through the constitutional convention, and the work that we, the Labour party, the Greens, the trade unions, the Churches and the business organisations did together was influenced by the fact that many of us had thought about it in considerable detail before we had the opportunity to implement it.
	It remains a matter of some astonishment to me that the Scottish National party, which lives for nothing other than Scottish independence, appears to have so little command of the detail of what that would involve and is presenting it on the basis of unilateral, unfounded and unsupportable assertions. That is relevant in the context of the timescale on the back of the briefing notes, alluded to by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West, which point out that the Scottish Government propose to produce a White Paper next November. That is more than two years after they were elected and only a year before we are supposed to make a decision. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out when he intervened to make the case for Northern Ireland, many fundamental questions must
	be answered. As the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart)—speaking, I would guess, as much for the border as for Penrith—has rightly asserted, these are not questions that can only be answered in Scotland.
	Those questions must be answered in Scotland and outside it, which is why the debate must be conducted with recognition that this is not some parochial, internal matter for the future of Scotland. It affects how Scotland might relate to the Bank of England, the European Commission, NATO, the UN and any other multilateral or international organisation. That is of course crucial, but the implications of the change for the rest of the UK are also important. Many people in Scotland will seek to balance those two questions when considering how to vote.

Bob Stewart: I am a bit worried that we might be saying that we will never debate the matter of Scottish independence in this Chamber again once the section 30 order has been passed. Will we be allowed to debate and to elaborate on the arguments after the order has been passed? If we pass it today, will that mean that Mr Speaker will never allow us to debate this matter, which is very important for our constitution, again?

Malcolm Bruce: I am sure that the House will have the opportunity to debate it and that the hon. Gentleman will ensure that we do. Of course, we will not have the opportunity to amend or determine the Bill on the referendum, which will be decided by the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is relevant, as it is important that we recognise that the deal struck in the Edinburgh agreement involved compromise from the UK Government and the Scottish Government. The UK Government have agreed to pass substantial power to the Scottish Parliament to legislate for the referendum, but they have an agreement that it will be on a single, stand-alone question and that the Electoral Commission will at least be involved in the process. Those are all crucial issues and I reiterate my view that the Scottish Government discount the Electoral Commission at their peril. They would be wise to take that point on board. We recognise that it is a compromise, but one made in the spirit of ensuring that we have a democratic vote that we can all accept and support.
	This morning, my office took a call from a number of Canadian parliamentarians who are anxious to meet me to discuss the implications from their experience. I have to point out that they are not in favour of breaking up Canada, but are warning of the dangers of a sustained threat to the continued existence of the United Kingdom rather than one that can be resolved by 2014.

Angus MacNeil: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Bruce: Reluctantly.

Angus MacNeil: Does the right hon. Gentleman think Canadian independence has been a success?

Malcolm Bruce: I think the hon. Gentleman is disingenuous, and knows perfectly well that the issue—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say “disingenuous”, although he may not agree with the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. May I also say that Canada is a bit wide of the order we are discussing?

Malcolm Bruce: Within the order, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the reason why it is time limited, the point is that we need a referendum to take place within no more than two years—sooner would be better. We need to agree that the outcome will not lead to a succession of subsequent referendums, which is what has bedevilled Canada; I think that is the point the parliamentarians are anxious to make.
	For those of us who believe in devolution, home rule and ultimately federalism, this process can be a constructive step along the road. My instincts are that the people of Scotland already recognise that independence looks like a step too far; there are too many questions incapable of being answered this side of 2014, least of all by the SNP alone. In fact, the process has focused people’s minds on the benefits of a strong sense of Scottish identity but real influence in the United Kingdom, which gives us a footprint in the world that an independent Scotland would not have.
	Many people in Scotland have articulated to me recently the fact that they do not see that independence adds anything to Scotland’s well developed sense of identity, but it would hugely diminish the reach and value that the United Kingdom gives the people of Scotland. That is the reason why we are better together, and my instincts tell me that a majority in Scotland have already decided that independence is not the way forward. We cannot underestimate the campaign or what the SNP will try to do to persuade people otherwise. We have to ensure that the end of the process brings a result that we can all accept, and that if the people of Scotland vote for the United Kingdom the SNP will also accept that they have to recognise that the people of Scotland voted for constructive engagement with the United Kingdom, not continual disruption.

Ian Davidson: I speak to the report of the Scottish Affairs Committee on the subject. I welcome the fact that we have reached this stage and that we are having a referendum. The Committee makes clear our view that the Edinburgh agreement was reached by compromise and consensus between Scots at Westminster and Scots at Holyrood. We congratulate both teams.
	It is noticeable that the agreement has been made by Scots, not just between the two Parliaments. Much congratulation has been given to the Secretary of State, but kind words are due to the Under-Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who also played a role in the exercise, and to their teams who constructively engaged throughout. In the same spirit, the Deputy First Minister, the Business Manager of the Scottish Parliament and their teams should be congratulated too.
	The deal was reached by a process of collaboration, discussion and debate. It demonstrates that even though the two sides are far apart on the principle of separation,
	they were none the less able to come together to debate and agree the best way forward procedurally. That is important.
	The Committee takes the view that it is right in principle that the practical details of the referendum be handled in the Scottish Parliament. Once our report was published, I read comments from a member of the SNP, who said that it was grudging. Our report is not grudging about the process; we believe it is right in principle that the procedural details be agreed in the Scottish Parliament, but with that power comes responsibility. The referendum will be Scotland’s shop window on the world, so it has to be handled with pride and probity. We have heard from SNP Members that it will meet the gold standard for election conduct. I hope that is true. As we said, we fear the worst but hope for the best.
	We need to look at how agreement about the process will be handled in the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Affairs Committee may diverge from some of my colleagues on the role of the Electoral Commission. In line with how the deal in Edinburgh was reached, we take the view that the best possible option is for the two campaigns themselves to come to agreement. It is better that the participants in the referendum reach agreement on all the procedures. If that fails—if it is not possible—it will be appropriate for the Electoral Commission to play a role.
	The title of our report asks “Can a player also be the referee?” We have some doubts about whether a player active on behalf of only one side can be trusted to set fair rules for something as crucial as the referendum. If consensus cannot be achieved, we want the impartial Electoral Commission to guide us as to what should be decided.
	The third and worst option—below consensus and below the Electoral Commission: at the very bottom—would be the pursuit of factional advantage, which could be described as the “aggregation of marginal gains” by the majority with control in the Scottish Parliament and who dread defeat. The point has already been made that the Scottish Government control the Scottish Parliament and they are both the creatures of the SNP. There is genuine fear that at every stage of the process, they will seek to shave advantage, steal inches and make marginal gains on the principle that mony a mickle maks a muckle—that is a test for Hansard.
	It is important that scrutiny of the section 30 order and its implementation does not end with its passage through the House. Those of us who are elected by Scots in Scotland, such as my parliamentary colleagues and me, must remember that we represent a larger number of Scots than Members elected to the Scottish Parliament, as turnout in our election was at least 10% higher. If anybody can claim the right to speak on behalf of Scots in Scotland it is us.
	We began our investigation by seeking to clarify where power lay for the determination of the rules of the referendum. It is clear and, I think, universally accepted that as of now the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to hold a referendum. Until recently, the Scottish Parliament was unwilling to accept that and prevaricated for a long time over calls for a second question, which it has now abandoned. That prevarication
	and procrastination delayed both the introduction of the order and the legislation that will come under it, and thus the referendum itself.
	It is now clear that the Scottish Government accept that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to run a referendum or to determine the rules, and that they can only conduct a referendum to dissolve the United Kingdom if the necessary powers are granted to them. When granting such powers, especially as we will no longer have an influence on how they are conducted, we have a particular responsibility to satisfy ourselves not only that the correct powers are being transferred but that they will be used in accordance with the agreement between the Governments, which is related to the order.
	I welcome the fact that much is made in the order of the role of the Electoral Commission. Guidelines are set and there is no second question. There is a deadline for the length of time that the process can run. The Scottish Parliament can and will be held to account, not only by MSPs but by the people of Scotland on the extent to which it abides by those rules. The Committee and I particularly welcome the fact that the statement accompanying the section 30 notice expressed the view that arrangements should meet
	“the highest standards of fairness, transparency and propriety, informed by consultation and independent expert advice.”
	That is an exceedingly high standard, and I hope that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament will live up to it.

Brian H Donohoe: My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument on the need for the Scottish Government to give some form of assurance to the Scottish people as to whether they will they accept the position on the commission.

Ian Davidson: I will come on to that, because we want to place on record our unanimous view as a Committee. That is important, because the membership includes many people who disagree about many things, but there is unanimity on the fact that a referendum will take place, and we very much welcome the steps taken to bring that about. We are of the view, and we wish to make this explicit, that the question of Scottish separation or independence is something that only the Scottish people can decide. Whatever their views, people in the rest of the United Kingdom must be bound by that decision. If, on the other hand, the Scottish people confirm that they wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, we echo the words of the First Minister, who said that the question of separation should be regarded as firmly settled for a generation or more.
	Translating the question of “Made in Scotland” into the detail, we think that it is right that the legislation should be introduced in the Scottish Parliament, which will determine the timing and the franchise, subject to the involvement of the Electoral Commission. The wording of the question and the administration of the referendum will be decided by the Scottish Parliament. We do not accept, as I said earlier, the self-serving argument made by the Scottish National party that the Scottish Parliament already has those powers, and that in some way it and it alone has the right to express a view. In the interests of transparency and fairness, and in the interests of devolution,
	for which many of us here have spent a long time fighting and arguing, we believe in principle that the Scottish Parliament is the appropriate place for those to occur.
	We strongly believe that transferring those powers to the Scottish Parliament makes it essential to deal with the issue of losers’ consent. Those who lose the referendum cannot turn round and say that they were cheated if they were responsible for drawing up the rules. There is a heavy burden on the SNP to accept the fact that it cannot subsequently complain that the rules were drawn up unfairly. It cannot cry, “We wus robbed” if it was responsible for drawing up those rules. With the transfer of that power comes the responsibility to accept the result, as we have said, for a generation or more.
	The question of how those powers are exercised brings me back to the aggregation of marginal gains, and the SNP’s intention to seek to gain partisan advantage from every aspect of the referendum process. It has been given the opportunity to twist the rules, and unfortunately it is our expectation that that is what it will try to do. It is difficult for any party in those circumstances to be both a player in the game and to try to exercise the role of a neutral referee, which is why we are of the view that, ideally, consensus should be reached on the rules and regulations. Failing that, the role of a neutral referee is essential.
	We are concerned about the timing of the referendum. The Secretary of State said that the process was initiated by the UK Government, who produced a timetable that demonstrated that it would be possible to hold a referendum in 2013. Even though Scottish Ministers in the Scottish Parliament have promoted a referendum on independence since 2007, they failed to introduce a referendum Bill in the Scottish Parliament between 2007 and 2011. The Scottish Government were elected with an overall majority in May 2011, but showed no interest in promoting their core policy until the UK Government issued a consultation document in January 2012. Since then, the Scottish Government have taken every possible opportunity to delay, and they intend to delay the referendum as long as possible in 2014. We very much welcome the fact that the UK Government insisted that the referendum could not be delayed beyond the end of 2014, although we believe that that is unduly long, and that the referendum could and should be held much sooner.
	We see no reason for delaying the referendum until the end of 2014, except for perceived partisan advantage. The referendum will be timed to take place after the anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn, which is celebrated mainly because Scots slew large numbers of English people, and after the Commonwealth games in Glasgow. The fact that those events will take place before the referendum gives people the opportunity to celebrate the politics of identity and ethnicity. We thought that Scotland in the 21st and 22nd century would be looking forward, and would be progressive and positive. Celebrating the murder of hundreds or thousands of English people does not necessarily provide the best base on which to move forward. The timing of the referendum to celebrate that ancient battle gives entirely the wrong message to the world about the spirit motivating modern Scotland.
	Not only does the delay cause general inconvenience to business and uncertainty but, in relation to the shipbuilding industry in my constituency, it puts a
	substantial number of jobs at risk by conflating the timing of a referendum with the timing of major orders. We are about to produce a report that will show the difficulties for the future of the shipyards caused by the timing of the referendum. We hope that the Scottish Parliament will take that into account and decide to bring the referendum forward so that it is held much earlier than the end of 2014. We think that the delay has been imposed purely for partisan advantage, and we can see no other logical reason for it, and we condemn undue delay.

John Robertson: My hon. Friend represents part of the Clyde—I represent the other part—so he will know how important it is to achieve stability when documents on the future prospects of our Navy are being drawn up as we speak. We need to make sure that the Clyde produces the kind of ships in future that it has in the past. The prevarication that we have seen will cause exactly the opposite result, and means that people are looking at other areas in which to build ships.

Ian Davidson: I agree. My colleague is in a similar position to me, and that is why as a local constituency Member I am enthusiastic about promoting the notion that, as referendum results will be counted constituency by constituency, if my constituency votes to remain part of the United Kingdom it should be allowed to do so, in order that it can continue to gain shipbuilding orders from the United Kingdom. We are prepared to enter into an alliance with Orkney and Shetland so that we can have oil and ships and those other matters. Whether or not other people wish to join that alliance I will leave to them. [Interruption.] Well, we have received approaches from other constituencies, saying that home rule for Govan and surrounding areas linked with the rest of the United Kingdom should be encouraged. I am confident that, certainly in my constituency, we will have a no vote in the referendum.

Charles Kennedy: The Chair of the Select Committee makes an intriguing argument, which I have heard him make before. How does that sit alongside his argument that as good democrats the SNP must accept the result?

Ian Davidson: I will accept the result, and if the result is that my constituency votes to remain with the United Kingdom, it should be allowed to do so. What better way is there of accepting the result? If we vote to remain with the United Kingdom and are allowed to do so, we would not contest the result in any way. I hope that has the merit of clarity.
	I return to my role as Chair of the Select Committee and the question of the franchise. Properly, as I indicated earlier, this is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine, although we are uncomfortable with the fact that using the electoral register for local government means that EU citizens who are resident in Scotland but are not British citizens will not be able to vote in a British general election, but will be able to vote to break up the United Kingdom.
	That is an anomaly with which we are not happy. It means, among other things, that somebody who arrived, say, from eastern Europe a couple of weeks, virtually, before the last registration date will be able to vote, whereas somebody who has lived in Scotland all their
	lives and has temporarily gone down to England or abroad might not be able to do so. We think in principle that those who have strong ties, commitments and loyalties to Scotland should be able to vote in the Scottish referendum. We have expressed that view. In line with the spirit of devolution, however, we want to leave it to the Scottish Parliament to determine exactly how that is handled.

Jim McGovern: As my hon. Friend knows, I am also a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee. Does he find it somewhat odd that the former England football captain, Terry Butcher, will be entitled to vote in the referendum, but Sir Alex Ferguson will not?

Ian Davidson: Indeed. These are anomalies and the Scottish Parliament has to show its maturity by being prepared to tackle them. There are no ideal answers in these circumstances. We must recognise that many of these issues are difficult and I will return to some of them, if I can.
	The first issue that we want to tackle is that of 16 and 17-year-olds. This is properly an issue for the Scottish Parliament to handle. However, it is essential that the Scottish Parliament makes sure that if 16 and 17-year-olds are able to vote, they all are on the register. I recognise that there will be organisational difficulties. Administratively, the problems will be extreme. I am not entirely clear how we are going to avoid a situation where, potentially, 14-year-olds are registered.

Margaret Curran: I note that the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee is reporting to the Chamber the findings of the Committee, which has gained much respect for the work that it has undertaken. Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that we are listening to him without the presence of any SNP Members to hear him? That is disrespectful to the Committee.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. With respect to the hon. Lady, it is entirely up to hon. Members to decide which speeches they listen to, if they are not waiting to speak. Members in the Chamber may draw their own conclusions, but it is not a matter of order.

Ian Davidson: Indeed, it is not a matter of order. It is a matter of common decency, politeness and politics. Because the SNP does not control the Scottish Affairs Committee, SNP Members have decided to truant. They absented themselves from the Committee earlier on and have said that they will not come back until the Committee Chair is replaced by someone whom they favour more. The Northern Ireland Assembly does not decide who should chair the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the Welsh Assembly does not select the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, and we should not have a situation where the Scottish Parliament selects the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.
	We cannot have a situation where a party, which originally did not seek a place on the Scottish Affairs Committee and got one only because the Conservative party was prepared to give up a seat for it, then demands that everything changes. That is regrettable but not surprising. It calls into question the genuineness with
	which the SNP is approaching the whole exercise in relation to the referendum. We have got responsibility and agreement on the section 30 notice. Now will come the issue of implementation. Will it be done on a sectarian and partisan basis or will it be done in accordance with the interests of Scotland as a whole? We wait with interest.

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour across the water. Does he agree that perhaps the word that is missing here and in many other places is “trust”? For example, trust in what will be done in Edinburgh where, as I have mentioned on several occasions, bullying takes place. We see it in other areas. I am sorry to say that this is another example of the SNP’s bullying—in this case, of my hon. Friend. I am pleased to see him stand up against that. It is important that we trust the Scottish people and the Scottish Government. Does he agree?

Ian Davidson: We certainly have to trust the Scottish people. They are sensible enough to recognise that the SNP is unwilling to engage in debate. It is worth pointing out that at the establishment of the Scottish Affairs Committee, two SNP Members who had previously been on the Committee refused to participate because they found themselves being ridiculed and their arguments destroyed at every turn. They had had enough so they decided that they did not want to come back any more. That is understandable. Nobody likes being defeated in arguments, but it is rather petty and juvenile for them to take their ball and go home.

Mark Lazarowicz: It is surely also fair to suggest that the total absence of SNP Members from this debate, which has been attended by Members from all other parties in the House, indicates that we are entitled to question how far the SNP will indeed listen to our view in the debate about the order when it goes to the Scottish Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be good if the SNP Members returned to the Chamber?

Ian Davidson: That is correct. How can they claim that they are willing to take all points of view into account if they are not willing to hear them? They withdraw from the Select Committee and from the Chamber when views are expressed that they do not like? I hope my colleagues will in future see it as a badge of honour if their remarks result in the SNP departing from the Chamber. They are obviously raising points that SNP Members feel cannot be refuted.
	Let me make progress. We do not want to spend our time obsessing about the SNP truanting when there are important topics to be discussed. The Committee raised the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds and the difficulties of making sure that they are on the register. The Scottish Government and the SNP have had a long time to work through the procedures for that but have not done so adequately. In our view it will not be sufficient for only attainers to be given the vote in the Scottish referendum—those who will attain majority during the period of the register. It will be necessary to make sure, as promised, that everyone who is 16 or 17 years old is on the register.
	I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern), who serves with distinction on the Scottish Affairs Committee. It is true that not only will Terry Butcher be able to vote and Alex Ferguson will not, but according to the Team GB information that we have, of the 11 Scottish Olympic medallists, only one is reported to be resident in Scotland. If people are good enough to represent Scotland at the Olympics and win medals on Scotland’s behalf, one would have thought that the rules would be sufficiently flexible to allow them to participate in the referendum, and similarly with respect to members of the Scottish rugby team and members of the Scottish football team. We can understand why those people might not want to be publicly known, given the recent results, but none the less, if they are selected to represent the country, one would have thought that they would at least be given the opportunity to vote on whether or not it should be independent.
	All that has to be tackled by the Scottish Parliament. In particular, we want the Scottish Parliament to look at the position of Scottish servicemen. Someone who signs up for the services has no control over where they are sent. There are three groups of service personnel—the valuable point was made earlier that this also applies to their families—who have no control over where they are sent.
	The first group consists of those who are posted in Scotland. There will be no difficulty in them having a vote, because they will be registered in Scotland. Secondly, there are those who are sent to Germany or furth of—outside—the UK. Under the normal rules, they will be expected to have a postal vote or an absentee vote to allow them to participate in the referendum. Thirdly, those who are posted to England, Wales or Northern Ireland would usually be expected to register where they are based, so they would not be on the local government register in Scotland and, therefore, would not be entitled to vote.
	I understand that all those who are in the UK armed services at present will, in future, be given the opportunity to transfer and join the Scottish defence forces, whether they be the army, the air force or the navy. If they transfer, they might be asked to lay down their lives for Scotland. In such circumstances, it seems appropriate that they be given the opportunity to vote on whether or not a separate Scotland should be established. That is perhaps the most clear example of the anomalies resulting from using the local government electoral register. We believe that the Scottish Government have a responsibility to address those issues.

Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend was asked earlier about the position of Sir Alex Ferguson, who, as far as I know, has made his home on a permanent basis, at least for some years, in the Manchester area. Most Scottish troops who are posted abroad or elsewhere in the UK, however, are posted for only a few years. Most of them intend to come back to and reside in Scotland. Is not the key point that, for the most part, people are not leaving Scotland permanently but intend to return to the UK in due course? Someone who works for the European Union in Brussels can still register as a Scottish citizen and as an overseas voter for up to 15 years, but a Scottish soldier living in England cannot do so.

Ian Davidson: I think that there are excellent reasons why anybody who works for the EU in Brussels should be disqualified from voting on any subject, but that is a different issue. My understanding is that those working for the EU in Brussels would be entitled to vote in Scotland in UK elections for up to 15 years. That also applies to those who have retired to Spain and so on, but are not on the local government register.
	Alex Ferguson plays a valuable role in my constituency as an old boy of Govan high school. I was going to say that he attends on a regular basis, but perhaps “visits” is a better term: I understand that his attendance was not that great when he was meant to be there, but I believe that it is a bit better now. He visits, give talks, participates and plays a constructive and positive part in the life of the school. It is clearly inappropriate that someone such as that, who has a lifetime commitment to Scotland, is not able to participate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) makes a valuable point about the extent to which service personnel are not given a say on where they will be posted. The same applies to many multinational companies, which post people abroad as part of their employment and career progression. It will be a test of the maturity of the Scottish Parliament to see whether it can find ways of squaring this circle and making sure that the electoral register is inclusive rather than exclusive.
	Turning to the wording of the question, we have already produced, as Members present will be aware, a report asking, “Do you agree this is a biased question?” It was undoubtedly the case that every professional and expert with whom we discussed the issue and from whom we took evidence said that the question posed by the SNP was biased. The formulation, “Do you agree?”, is deliberately designed to elicit a positive answer. In such circumstances, I am distressed to hear the essentially weasel words of SNP spokesmen, who refuse to commit themselves to a fair question. There is some justification for what they have said, because I think that, in principle, the Scottish Parliament has to be supreme in these circumstances. However, there is absolutely no reason why the SNP as a political party should not have committed itself to accepting the advice of the Electoral Commission.
	Given the hierarchy that has been mentioned, I would have thought that the best alternative is for the two campaigns to agree on the wording, and that the second best alternative is for everybody to accept the views of the impartial Electoral Commission, which has agreed to consider the matter in depth and to submit to the Scottish Affairs Committee not just its conclusions, but its working—as we used to be told in school exams, “Show working.” The commission will demonstrate how it has come to its conclusion. It will not simply spin a top, toss a coin or decide in an arbitrary fashion; it will produce a solution and demonstrate why it believes it to be the fairest one.
	There is no reason whatsoever why the SNP as a political party should not commit itself to accepting that solution. I have some understanding of why the SNP would not wish to commit the Scottish Parliament irrevocably to that, because, theoretically, a distinction can be drawn between the Parliament and the Government on the one hand and the party on the other, but the parties involved in the Better Together campaign have
	given an assurance that they will accept what the Electoral Commission suggests, so I think we are entitled to regret the fact that the SNP has not done so, too.

Alan Reid: The evidence that the Committee took from opinion poll experts was that the question is not just biased, but ridiculously biased, and that no self-respecting polling organisation would ever ask such a question. The Chairman of the Committee is perfectly correct and I hope that the Scottish Government will accept the advice of not just the Electoral Commission, but independent polling organisations.

Ian Davidson: They were absolutely clear that no self-respecting polling organisation would use such a biased formulation. To be fair—we have to be fair—they also argued, with some justification, that by the time of the referendum, people will generally know what it is that they are voting for. They will generally know what the question stands for and will be able to make a choice. However, if there is a marginal gain to be made, it should be removed. To come back to the mantra of British Cycling, which is about the aggregation of marginal gains, this is yet another example of the SNP seeking to make even the slightest advantage balance towards itself rather than the other side. This will not sway 50%, but it might sway 0.1% or a fraction of that. However, mony a mickle makes a muckle, as we are well aware, so in these circumstances each example that seeks partisan advantage is to be deplored.
	The Committee says that
	“the only deduction which can be made is that it”—
	that is, the SNP and the Scottish Government—
	“wishes to retain the capacity to amend the question so as to affect the result.”
	That is the only conclusion that we can reasonably draw.
	I have already covered the role of the Electoral Commission in most areas, but I want to touch on spending limits in particular. The Committee drew in a great deal of evidence on this, and we were convinced by that evidence that the ideal pattern would be for the two parties to agree and, failing that, for the Electoral Commission to decide. The Electoral Commission has come out with a view that is at variance with that of the Scottish Government. Notwithstanding that, the Committee and I still take the view that the spending that the commission would allow is too small.

Lindsay Roy: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the amount of spending to be allowed for the referendum is not hugely dissimilar from the amount permitted for the devolution referendum in the 1990s?

Ian Davidson: Yes. The amount that the Electoral Commission is proposing is similar to the cash amount that was allowed in the 1997 referendum, but as a result of inflation, its real value has halved. Our belief is that, for a regulated period of 16 weeks, the spending limits should be bigger. As I understand it, £750,000 works out at 1p per voter per week of the campaign period, and I genuinely believe that that is insufficient. The Scottish Government are suggesting that the figure should be even lower.
	This is a good example of how those of us who are active in Scottish politics are free to disagree with the Electoral Commission’s initial proposals. We can campaign for it to change its mind, but, at the end of the day, everyone involved should say that they would commit themselves to accepting the commission’s decision if it does not change its mind. The Scottish Government are unwilling to do that, however. They have reserved unto themselves the right to impose their view—which is presumably what suits them best—on top of, or instead of, the Electoral Commission’s view.

Fiona O'Donnell: The order also transfers to the Scottish Government the power to decide who can make donations to the campaign. What is the view of my hon. Friend’s Committee on foreign donations being made to the campaign?

Ian Davidson: I will come to that in a second.
	The Better Together campaign was unequivocal in saying that it would accept the ruling of the Electoral Commission. The Yes campaign would not do so, however. It said that it would commit itself on whether to support the Electoral Commission only when it had heard what the commission’s judgment was. That also implies that it might not accept the judgment. Presumably, that position is based on self-interest.
	My hon. Friend mentioned donations a moment ago. The clear issue is whether foreign donations should be accepted. Again, there is a difference between the campaigns and again I think that is based on perceived self-interest. The Better Together campaign has said that this is about the United Kingdom and that only people and organisations in the United Kingdom should be able to play a meaningful role by providing financial support. The Yes campaign has said that it is prepared, in principle, to accept unlimited amounts of money in bundles of £500 or less from foreign sources. It has set up a front organisation in the United States that is designed to generate organisational support for the Yes campaign and for separation. Some of those involved in that have made it perfectly clear, on websites and the like, that part of their function is to raise money for the SNP and its separation campaign.
	Some people might have doubts about how much impact small amounts of up to £500 could have. When we took evidence from the True Wales campaign, which took the “no” side in the recent Welsh referendum, it said that virtually all its money had come from small donations. It was able to run an entire campaign almost entirely on small donations. Many of us will remember the publicity that was given to the Obama campaign and others in the United States—most notably, that of Howard Dean—which received a substantial amount of their money from a multiplicity of small donations. So even though the £500 limit might not appear to be a great deal, those donations could be significant when aggregated.
	The major question of principle that needs to be addressed is whether the referendum in Scotland can be bought and sold with foreign gold—[Interruption.] I know that some people have heard that term before, but it is true none the less. Should the referendum be
	bought and sold with foreign gold? The SNP seem to have no scruples about that. However, those of us who are committed to the United Kingdom and to fair elections say that we should abide by the principle of PPERA and the guidance from the Electoral Commission. It is clear from the guidance and the spirit of PPERA, although perhaps not from the letter of it, that foreign money should not be involved in such referendums. Even at this late date, I hope that the Scottish Parliament and the SNP show confidence in their ability to raise money from Scots in Scotland and desist from taking foreign money.

Jim Sheridan: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the nauseating things about some of the people who donate money to the SNP from abroad is that they live abroad to avoid paying tax, and yet they want to tell us in Scotland, who pay our taxes over here, how to live? That includes Sean Connery.

Ian Davidson: I do not wish to name individuals, but a Yes campaign is being established in America and I understand the suggestion that Tax Dodgers for Separation is about to be established in Monaco. Whether people will sign up to that group publicly is not clear, but we will monitor carefully where the money is coming from. We want to be clear about whether the SNP intends to name people abroad—whether tax dodgers or not—who contribute to its referendum funds. It has not given an unequivocal statement on that, to the best of my knowledge.
	The proposed regulated period is 16 weeks only. It is interesting to note that the Scottish Government and the SNP have accepted the advice of the Electoral Commission on that matter. They are therefore not opposed in principle to accepting the advice of the Electoral Commission. We can only assume that it suits them in the circumstances. The Select Committee has said that the rules that govern the regulated period with regard to openness on donations and finance should also govern the unregulated period. So far, the two campaigns have indicated that they are minded to accept that, but we do not have that down in blood.
	In conclusion—[Interruption.] It is true, as is being said by Members from a sedentary position, that the SNP Members have not yet returned to the Chamber.

Jim McGovern: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is deplorable that the SNP Members are not here. Does he agree that the party that claims to stand up for Scotland cannot even turn up for Scotland?

Ian Davidson: Exactly. Equally, the party that claims to stand up for Scotland cannot even sit down and listen for Scotland.
	Let me be clear: the Scottish Affairs Committee is positive about what is being proposed. We welcome the fact that there will be a referendum. We welcome the clarification that the Scottish Parliament will be given the legal powers to conduct it, whereas it did not have those powers before. We congratulate the Secretary of State and his team, including the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and those in the Scottish Parliament who brought the deal about.
	We support the deal not only as a matter of principle; we support it because we recognise the essential need to obtain losers’ consent. If they have had a hand in
	setting the rules, those who lose the referendum will not be able to claim that they were robbed. However, with that responsibility comes the need to ensure that the rules meet the gold standard. We are exceptionally concerned that the right of the Scottish people to have a fair referendum will not be met by the SNP. Those of us who have been elected by people in Scotland must not now wash our hands of this matter, but should continue to campaign to ensure that the referendum is fair and that the Scottish people make sure that anybody who tries to rig the referendum pays a heavy political price.

Eleanor Laing: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson). He and the Scottish Affairs Committee, which he chairs, have carried out the important task of putting before the House a wide-ranging report on this matter, and it was good to hear his presentation of points from that report this afternoon.
	I wish to put it on the record that it is an absolute disgrace that nobody from the Scottish National party was in the Chamber when the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee delivered his important and wide-ranging speech. Joking apart—I am joking, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I am disappointed that I am not about to have —[Interruption.] Oh—I am not disappointed. Right on cue the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) comes back into the Chamber. I am delighted that he is here because I was disappointed that there was nobody to argue with me. Nevertheless, it is a disgrace that no Scottish National party Member was in the Chamber to engage in debate with the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee. Not every word spoken by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West goes without challenge in this House, and it was the duty of Scottish National party Members to be present to challenge anything with which they disagreed in what the hon. Gentleman said on the Floor of the House, and not merely in the media and other places. This Chamber is the forum for discussion about the affairs of our country—our whole country.
	I well remember our debates in 1998 on the Scotland Bill that became the historic Scotland Act 1998. I remember Donald Dewar, to whom I pay great tribute for the work he did on behalf of Scotland and the United Kingdom, standing at the Dispatch Box when we debated what is now section 29 of the Act, and saying that it was not his intention for there ever to be a situation in which a Government of Scotland, or Scottish Parliament, would wish to conduct a referendum on the independence of Scotland. I firmly recall those of us then on the Opposition Benches saying, “But there might be and we must guard against it.” He said we did not have to guard against it, but in the end we did. However, history moves on.
	I certainly respect the sovereignty of the people, and we now have a Government elected by the Scottish people—sadly—and that is up to the Scottish people and is democracy speaking. We now have a Government who do wish to conduct a referendum on the future constitutional position of the United Kingdom, and therefore it is right for this Parliament to enact this order today to give the Scottish Parliament power to conduct a referendum.
	I welcome the Edinburgh agreement. It has been well considered, well balanced, well argued and well presented. The most important part about it is that it requires a referendum to be legal, fair and decisive, and on those counts, like most people who have spoken this afternoon, I have deep concerns about four particular points: the role of the Electoral Commission; the timing of the referendum; the question in the referendum; and the franchise. If those four matters are not correctly dealt with as the legislation to put a referendum in place goes through the Scottish Parliament, that referendum will not command the respect of the people whose future it will decide. We all want the referendum to be decisive. We all want this issue to be over, once and for all, so that those of us in the political world can in future speak about the matters that affect the Scottish people and those throughout the UK on a day-to-day basis, instead of having this prolonged argument about the processes of government.
	Let me deal first with the Electoral Commission. I wonder what the First Minister is afraid of. If someone was truly willing to allow the proceedings of their Parliament and the decisions it takes to be properly examined by a properly constituted public body such as the Electoral Commission, they should have nothing to be afraid of. Not wanting the Electoral Commission to scrutinise what is to be done suggests that the First Minister does have something to be afraid of. It suggests that he wants to use political advantage to skew the way in which the referendum is conducted. I am surprised at that, because I have an enormous amount of respect for the Scottish First Minister. He is a brilliant politician and he usually manages to find his way through any argument with incredible rhetorical ability, often winning the point—[Interruption.] I am sure that his representative on earth, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, is not leaving the Chamber again.
	I genuinely pay tribute to the Scottish First Minister for his debating ability, his rhetorical ability and his political ability, so I do not see what he can possibly be afraid of, unless he has something to hide. He should not have anything to hide, because if we are to trust the Scottish people to make this important decision—and I do—we must trust them to make the decision in an open, honest, fair and balanced way. Indeed, it is worrying that when the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) spoke earlier, he took interventions and questions from various Members, but simply would not undertake on behalf of his party—and therefore on behalf of the Government in Scotland—to adhere to what the Electoral Commission says.

Bob Stewart: It seems clear that the reason why the Scottish nationalist party does not want to adhere to the directions of the Electoral Commission, but wants to seek electoral advantage by every means possible, is that it probably realises that the majority of Scotsmen and Scotswomen—and 16-year-old Scots too—want to remain united with the United Kingdom. That is probably why the Scottish nationalists will seek every advantage they can.

Eleanor Laing: I am quite certain that my hon. Friend is right. If the First Minister was confident that a vast majority of people in Scotland would vote for Scotland to separate from the United Kingdom, as he wishes
	they would, he would not be worried about the Electoral Commission, or about spending, the question or anything else. It is because he knows that, actually, the reason he has his majority in the Scottish Parliament at present is because of the circumstances that pertained when people went to the polls at the last Scottish election. They were not voting for Scotland to separate from the United Kingdom; they were voting against the Labour party—but I shall not go down that route now, as you would not allow me to, Mr Deputy Speaker. We all know, however, that that is what—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	They were voting against the Conservative party as well, I freely admit it, but that is not the point. The point is that the First Minister of Scotland knows that—he is a clever politician and he can analyse it. He knows the true intentions of the people of Scotland, and that is why he is afraid. That is why he is delaying, that is why he is afraid and that is why he is messing about with the franchise.

Michael McCann: The hon. Lady is wise not to stray too far from the subject, but party politics is important. Does she agree that members of the Scottish National party are trying to fuse the two issues of party politics and the constitution together, and are making the mistake of underestimating the Scottish people? The Scottish people know that a decision in a general election lasts for five years, while constitutional change will last for 300 years.

Eleanor Laing: Yes, the hon. Gentleman sums it up absolutely perfectly. When people vote in any kind of election, the effect is for the short to medium term; when they vote in a referendum, it is forever—people know that. Actually, I think it is because the First Minister does not underestimate the Scottish people that he is afraid, but he knows what they really are likely to do. We in this House certainly do not underestimate the Scottish people, but I still ask the question: why is the First Minister afraid of the Electoral Commission? If he is not afraid, he should come out now—so should the hon. Member for Moray, who did not do so this afternoon, and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire who is now, happily, in his place—and tell us that the Scottish Parliament will adhere unequivocally to whatever the Electoral Commission has to say. Well, he is not going to, and the silence speaks for itself.
	My next concern is timing. Every business person in Scotland and everyone who is concerned with business and economic prosperity in Scotland will say that the uncertainty of the present situation is damaging for the Scottish economy, and therefore for the Scottish people. It simply does not make sense, having spent decades and decades building up the Scottish National party as a machine with just one goal—to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom—that when at last that party is in a position to do so, it does not but hesitates and will not take action. Again I ask: what are SNP members afraid of? Are they really waiting for the anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn? Are they really expecting some sort of upsurge in nationalist feeling because we are going to have the Commonwealth games in Glasgow? Exactly the opposite happened in the Olympics. Was it not wonderful to see Team GB? Was it not fantastic to see people from Scotland, England and Wales all working
	together as a brilliant team in the Olympics? The games are not going to fuel nationalism; they will do exactly the opposite.

Malcolm Bruce: Does my hon. Friend not acknowledge that those participating in the Olympic games on behalf of the nations of the United Kingdom will still be part of Team GB and training for the Rio Olympics?

Eleanor Laing: Absolutely. The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Let us hope that they train just as well as they did last time and bring in as many medals, as it was wonderful to see and to support. He is absolutely right, so why wait?
	Looking at it from the other point of view, however, I was annoyed at first that we were not just getting on with this and having the referendum, but now I discover that the more that one goes into the consequences of Scotland separating from the United Kingdom and the more time we have to examine the consequences in every area of life—every area of Government, every area of the economy and every area geographically—the more obvious it becomes that we are “Better Together”. I am now glad that we have many months ahead of us to make the argument, because I am confident that the people of Scotland will see the truth as it emerges and as we examine what the real consequences of separation would be.
	I turn next to the question. There is no point asking a question along the lines of: “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?” That is what the First Minister and the Scottish Government have so far proposed. It is such a biased question that even I would answer yes—of course, Scotland should be, is and always has been an independent country. It is a non-question. There is no point going through the rigmarole of a referendum, spending hundreds of millions of pounds, to ask a meaningless question. If even I would answer yes, the facts speak for themselves: the question is enormously biased.
	It is only worth asking a question, if it illuminates the real issue at stake, and the real issue is not about whether someone is proud to be Scottish and proud of their country; it is not about the word “independence” or Scotland being its own country; it is not even about nationhood, rising to be a nation again and all of that; the question is about separation. The difference between Scotland—indeed, the whole of the United Kingdom—before and after a referendum will turn only on the issue of separation. Nationhood will go on; the country will go on; and pride in one’s country will go on, as it always has done and always will do—those things will not change.
	The change will be that, if the Scottish people vote for what the First Minister asks them to vote for, Scotland will separate. The key word, then, is “separate”. We must put aside all those other words and ensure that the word “separate” is in the question, because that is what the referendum is really about. Research from MORI and other well-thought-of opinion pollsters shows that, by the time we get to voting day in a campaign as long as this, people pretty well know whether they are on this side or that, but the House should make it clear that we believe that the issue is separation and that therefore the word “separation” must be in the question.
	I come next to concerns about the franchise. It appears that the First Minister wants to make the franchise as wide as possible, as long as those who are enfranchised are those he thinks are likely to vote on his side of the argument. Basically, that is what it is all about. Let us consider the fairness, or otherwise, of the franchise. First, various Members have expressed their concerns about 16 and 17-year-olds voting. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West put to us the findings of his Select Committee report in that respect, and I hope that the House will take note of that.
	One of my main concerns about 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote is that, in order to make that happen, 14-year-olds have to appear on the register. It means including the names, addresses and ages of those aged 14 and 15, who are children, not adults. The names, ages and addresses of those children aged 14 and 15 will be available on a public document. That is simply not right, but it is one of the consequences of the crazy, scattergun effect of saying, “Let’s pull everyone into this; let’s let everybody vote; make the franchise as wide as possible”—as long, of course, as it means people who agree with the First Minister.

Mark Lazarowicz: Although there are certain issues about giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, there is a quite simple solution to the point raised by the hon. Lady. The names of under-16s should not be made available on a published register or on any register until a few weeks before the referendum period. There are ways of getting round the difficulty.

Eleanor Laing: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am not confident about that point. It greatly concerns me that the names, addresses and ages of 14-year-olds would be made public in order to allow them to vote by the time they are 16. At the moment, the name of someone who is yet to be 18 will be on the register more than a year before they are 18. I can cope with that for 17-year-olds, but not for 14-year-olds who are children. I repeat that that is simply not right.
	Moving on to other aspects of the franchise, it would appear that some members of the armed forces will be allowed to vote in the referendum, but what about their families or their dependants? What if someone serving in Germany lives with his wife, teenage children and perhaps mother-in-law? The person in the armed forces might be given a vote, but those others would not. That is not fair.

Bob Stewart: I find it extraordinary that because the most Scottish of infantry battalions, the 5th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland, the old Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, is garrisoned in Canterbury—that most English of towns—those serving in it will not be given the vote. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is extraordinary?

Eleanor Laing: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that that is extraordinary, and it is also simply unfair. If the Scottish Parliament wants this referendum to command respect in the United Kingdom and indeed across the world, the franchise on which it is based must be fair and must be seen to be fair. What is being said this afternoon must be taken into account in the Scottish Parliament when it comes to debate how the legislation
	for the referendum should be framed. It is also unfair that those who are not in the armed forces but who are temporarily out of Scotland, serving their country in some other respect, should not be allowed to vote. It is wrong that they and whoever is with them on their mission, whatever it might be, should not be allowed to vote. Those temporarily out of Scotland who would in other circumstances still be in Scotland will not be allowed to vote.

Pamela Nash: Does the hon. Lady agree that many people in Scotland will find it crazy that Scots in the armed forces posted abroad may well get a vote as their home address in Scotland is on the electoral register, yet Scots in the armed forces who are posted in the rest of the United Kingdom will not be able to vote in the referendum?

Eleanor Laing: Yes, that is the worst anomaly of all. People who are out of the United Kingdom are treated differently from people who are in the United Kingdom. I was just coming on to that point, and I am glad that the hon. Lady will agree with what I am about to say. The question is this: why is the franchise for this referendum being based on the franchise for local government elections? This is not a question of local government; it is completely different. Local government elections are about electing people, for four years or so, who look after truly local matters such as roads, pavements, lighting and village halls. I accept that people who are not living in the area and paying council tax should not take part in a local government election, because it concerns local matters. I also accept that people from EU countries, Commonwealth countries, Ireland and so on, who are living in a particular area and paying local taxes, should have a vote in a local government election at that time. Their vote will last for four years—I have no problem with that. But why has the franchise for this historic referendum been based on the franchise for local government elections? [Interruption.] I was hoping that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire might answer the question. He indicates that he will come to it in due course. That is excellent. We really need an answer to the question. This is not about local government, or local matters, but a huge, historic referendum that affects all Scots and the whole United Kingdom.

Mark Lazarowicz: The answer is simple: the franchise is the same for local and Scottish parliamentary elections. Any choice of franchise will have anomalies, but is it not sensible to make the franchise for the referendum the same as for Scottish parliamentary elections?

Eleanor Laing: No, it is not. The hon. Gentleman has answered the question in a factual way—the franchise for a Scottish Parliament election was based on the franchise for a local government election. I know that, but my argument is that basing a franchise on local government elections is not suitable for a historic referendum that will affect Scotland and the whole United Kingdom for a long time to come.
	If the franchise had been based on the UK parliamentary elections, British nationals who have been living outside Britain for less than 15 years would have a vote. That would be much fairer, and would cover the point made by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), because someone serving in the armed forces in,
	say, Germany, who has their entire family living with them—who would presumably have been out of Scotland for less than 15 years—would have a vote in the constituency in which they were last based in Scotland. It would make far more sense to base the franchise for the referendum on UK parliamentary elections, because that would allow far more people who are Scottish and who want to have a say in the future of their country to do so.
	There is a far more difficult point. Hundreds of thousands of Scots living in parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland do not feel in travelling the few miles to Carlisle or the few hundred miles to London that they have left their country. Their attitude—I know because I am one of them—is that they are living in a different part of their country from that in which they happen to have been born. That does not mean that they have in any way given up their nationality or their pride in their part of our United Kingdom. It is utterly scandalous that the Scottish Government’s current plans will disfranchise hundreds of thousands of people who were born in Scotland but live in other parts of the United Kingdom. The First Minister of Scotland has said that people from Commonwealth countries can vote on Scotland’s future, citizens of the Irish Republic who live in Scotland can vote on Scotland’s future, and anyone who is a citizen of any part of the enormous European Union who happens to be living in Scotland for a matter of months can have a say in the future of Scotland, but hundreds of thousands of Scots living in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will not have that say.

Pete Wishart: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s remarks for half an hour or so. All the arrangements to which she has referred during the past 10 minutes were agreed between her party’s Front Bench and the Labour Front Bench, and between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. If she is not happy about the arrangements for the Scottish people to have control over their own referendum through their elected representatives, she can express her unhappiness by voting against the order. Will she do that?

Eleanor Laing: No. I am very happy. The hon. Gentleman is trying to put words into my mouth, suggesting that I do not understand or care what happens in Scotland. That is not the case. I am very much in favour of the order, and very much in favour of allowing the Scottish Parliament to conduct the referendum. However, I firmly believe that because the referendum will affect the future of the whole United Kingdom, this House—this Parliament—should also serve as a forum for discussion about its conduct.
	Although I do not happen to live in Scotland at present, and although some Members who are speaking this afternoon do not represent Scottish constituencies, I hope that if matters will proceed with good will, the Scottish Parliament will take into consideration what we discuss in this Parliament during the process of giving it the power to hold the referendum.

Iain Stewart: As I understand it, the order in no way prohibits the Scottish Parliament from taking on board the suggestion that my hon. Friend is—very powerfully—making.

Eleanor Laing: As ever, my hon. Friend has expressed his view very clearly. That is exactly the point, and that is why it is so important that we are having a full debate today. This Parliament has a voice that deserves to be heard, and people throughout the United Kingdom have voices that deserve to be heard, when it comes to a matter that will affect the future of the whole United Kingdom. I have every confidence that the Scottish Parliament will hear our voices, and will take into consideration what is said in the House this afternoon and throughout the United Kingdom as the matter is debated over the coming weeks and months.
	It would not be difficult for a vote to be given to people who live in the United Kingdom, outside Scotland, but who were born in Scotland. Indeed, it would be very easy. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will not be able to answer the points that I am making, and nor do I expect him to do so. This is a matter for the Scottish Parliament, but I am using the forum of the House of Commons to make points which I hope will be taken up in the Scottish Parliament. They may be dismissed, but I hope that they will be taken seriously.
	It would not be difficult for a vote to be given to people who were born in Scotland, because everyone’s passport identifies the town in which they were born. It would not be difficult to allow a person who can show they were born in Scotland but who is registered to vote in some other part of the UK to apply for a postal vote to take part in the referendum. That is a serious point. I am not points-scoring against the SNP; I am trying to help the First Minister in his quest to broaden the franchise and show that the referendum takes into consideration the opinions of as many people as possible.
	There is an irony in all this. If I were a wealthy landowner who owned a property in Scotland as well as a house in my constituency in Essex, I could vote in the referendum, because I would be entitled to vote in local government elections on the basis that I own a property in Scotland. I would not even have to be a wealthy landowner, in fact: if I just owned a little house in Millport—which is, of course, my ambition—I could have a vote in the referendum. However, because I am not wealthy and cannot afford to own a property in Scotland as well as a house in my constituency, I cannot have a vote. As we all know, there are hundreds and hundreds of people who own properties in Scotland but live most of their lives in other parts of the UK who will have a vote in this referendum. It is ironic indeed that the First Minister is taking us back to before the 1832 Reform Act, when the right to vote depended on ownership of land. What a disgrace!

Anne McGuire: The hon. Lady might not welcome my intervention, because I think she may be in danger of slightly overegging her pudding. My understanding is that people have to prove to the electoral registration officers that they spend the majority of their time in the house at which they wish to be registered. While I understand the hon. Lady’s train of thought, I am not entirely sure that the image she is conjuring up of hordes of people living in other parts of the United Kingdom is accurate.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments, but my understanding is that people who have two properties in different places can vote in different
	elections, especially those based on a local government franchise. That is what is wrong here. If this franchise were constructed for the purposes of our historic referendum, rather than as a local government franchise, the problem would be overcome. I am making a serious request: when the Scottish Parliament debates this matter, I urge it to consider giving a postal vote in the referendum to people who were born in Scotland but who are now registered to vote in other parts of the UK.
	I welcome the Edinburgh agreement. We all believe in democracy. We in this House believe in the sovereignty of the people. It is right that our Parliament should give the Scottish Parliament the power to hold this referendum, and I look forward to the fight.

Ian Davidson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to leave the Chamber, but I do not wish my departure to be interpreted as some sort of juvenile stunt. How can I achieve that?

Nigel Evans: We are going to miss you, Mr Davidson, but each of us will have to come to terms in our own way with your absence from the Chamber.

Ian Davidson: Excellent; thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Anas Sarwar: I never thought I would say that I will miss my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), but I am missing him as he leaves the Chamber now.
	I am pleased to have an opportunity to take part in this debate. As I have said in the House before, the matter we are discussing today and the decision on Scotland’s future will be the biggest decision made in 300 years. It will certainly be the biggest decision in our lifetimes.
	First, let me reiterate a point the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West, made in jest, but which is, in fact, serious. Today we have heard the leader of the SNP in Westminster congratulating all parties for working together to get an agreement on this section 30 order. We have heard the SNP’s own campaign and the Yes Scotland chief executive saying, “We want a fair, honest, positive and transparent debate”, but instead what we have seen in this House is a co-ordinated stunt. It was not one Member choosing to go elsewhere because they had another priority—that is a different argument altogether; SNP Members chose to walk out from this Chamber in a co-ordinated way, and that is disrespectful not only to this Parliament, but to Scotland. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) should apologise for that behaviour. The Scottish people will judge the SNP on that very issue. Although the issue we are discussing is the reason why the SNP even exists, only one SNP Member can be bothered to come to the Chamber—and even they can walk out and walk about the Lobby instead of listening to the debate. That says everything about where the SNP’s priorities lie. The SNP’s priority is not Scotland; it is the SNP.
	When I joined the Labour party almost 15 years ago—I know that I do not look that old, Mr Deputy Speaker—I did so to fight against poverty and inequality
	across the world. I wanted to tackle inequality and discrimination wherever they may be found, and to promote opportunities for people, no matter what their background. I had no idea at that time that the first big battle of my political life would be to try to keep my own country together. I recognise that today’s debate is important to us, but it is more important to the people of Scotland and to the people of these isles. That is why we in this place and our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, from all political parties, must approach this debate and the debate on the future of the United Kingdom in a manner befitting the importance of the poll. This is no ordinary vote. All of us can be removed by the electorate—whether we like it or not, we are transient Members of this place—but the decision in 2014 will last for ever. That is why the terms and tone of the debate are so important.
	I welcome the agreement between the UK and Scottish Governments, and I congratulate Ministers on both sides on the hard work that was put in to reach it. However, I wish to sound a note of caution. The Secretary of State talked about making sure that we follow the advice of the Electoral Commission, but I do not think that anybody in this place should be naive about the current make-up of the Scottish Government and the SNP. We have a majority SNP Government in the Scottish Parliament, but that is not a democratic place in the conventional sense; it is a dictatorship of one man sitting in Bute house, who will do not what is in Scotland’s interests, but what is in his own or his party’s interests. We need to be very clear about that as we go forward.
	This Parliament has an important role to play. I fully agree that we need to transfer the powers from here to the Scottish Parliament—I fully accept that that is the right thing to do—but every Scottish Member of Parliament in this place was elected on a mandate of the Scottish electorate. My ballot paper did not say “UK Labour party” or “London Labour party”; it clearly said “Scottish Labour party”. My interest here, first and foremost, is to deliver for my constituents in Glasgow. The first and foremost thing for every Scottish Member in this place is to deliver for Scotland. That has to be the case in this debate and in every future such debate, not just in the referendum.
	So the UK Government do have a role to play in future. They have a role in terms of the franchise, the question and the framework resulting from the advice taken from the Electoral Commission on the spending limits. We must ensure that there is proper scrutiny in this place of the decisions taken at the Scottish Parliament, particularly in respect of ensuring that the Electoral Commission’s advice is followed.
	Let me make it clear that the SNP has won the mandate to hold a referendum—of course it has. The SNP won the right, through its election manifesto, to ask the question of the Scottish people. The SNP has campaigned for independence throughout its existence and this is its big moment. The eyes of the world are on the SNP as it seizes the chance to put its case to the people of Scotland. Equally, however, the people of Scotland have a right to respond decisively and they have the right to have the question asked and answered in a way that is open, transparent, fair and, perhaps above all else, not open to doubt or challenge.

Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point. Does he agree that the evidence is clear that a substantial proportion of the people who voted SNP do not support independence and if they saw the SNP manipulating the question, that could prove counter-productive in two ways? Of course, it would discredit the SNP but it would also lead to a result that people would find unsatisfactory. Does he agree that it is in the interests of the SNP and Scotland for the question to be agreed by, and to have the confidence of, all parties?

Anas Sarwar: I agree wholeheartedly and, in fact, I would go further. Polling has shown that 45% of the people who voted SNP in 2011, when the party won that overall majority in the Scottish Parliament, oppose independence and support being members of the United Kingdom. We have seen the launch of the Labour for Independence campaign, which has one or a maximum of two Labour members fronting a campaign led mainly by the SNP. In fact, the SNP should be looking to keep its own support rather than trying to look for voters elsewhere.
	The Scottish Government, Yes Scotland and the Deputy First Minister have all said that the debate must be open, transparent, fair and honest. The transfer of powers from this place to the Scottish Parliament and the decisions that the Electoral Commission will make on how to make the referendum fair and open are the first big tests of the rhetoric. This is the first opportunity those bodies will have to show that they will put the people of Scotland first, that they will put the future of Scotland before the future of the SNP and the country’s interests before their own, and that the will of the people of Scotland will come before all else. The people of Scotland deserve nothing less.
	I have some concerns. To date, the SNP rhetoric on transparency and fairness has not matched up to the reality of its behaviour. On the very subject of today’s debate, let us not forget that just one year ago the SNP said that it did not need a section 30 order for the referendum to be competent. Alex Salmond said to the Scottish Parliament:
	“We have set out in the past how the Scottish Parliament could hold a referendum that we are satisfied would be within its present competence.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 25 January 2012; c. 5605.]
	Bruce Crawford, as Minister for Parliamentary Business, said that the SNP Administration had set out their position on the
	“right and ability of the Scottish Parliament to hold an independence referendum”.
	Both comments were presumably the most factual comments ever made in the history of the Scottish Parliament.
	Let us be clear. The leader of the Westminster SNP has welcomed the historic agreement that will transfer these powers—an agreement the SNP said was not needed in the first place. We have also seen the section 30 order being used as an excuse for assertions on other issues. The Deputy First Minister stood up in the Scottish Parliament and claimed that the SNP was now in a position to seek legal advice on the EU because of the content of the Edinburgh agreement, an agreement that her party did not think was needed in the first place. Nothing in the agreement stopped the SNP or the Scottish Government from seeking legal advice on that
	issue or many others before this point, so none of the debate from the SNP should be skewed in the context of the section 30 agreement.
	We have heard from colleagues today, and have already seen from the SNP, a willingness to change the franchise for the referendum by reducing the voting age to 16. Although I agree with that, the SNP’s proposal is based not on any principled view that 16 and 17-year-olds should have the vote for all elections but rather on a belief that they might gain electoral advantage from the inclusion of that group, who were believed to be more likely to support independence. However, that plan appears to have backfired somewhat as a recent poll showed that young people are as against independence as the rest of Scotland.
	Let me make some important points about the expansion of the franchise to include 16-year-olds. We need to ensure that not only some 16-year-olds but every 16-year-old gets a vote in the referendum. We must be clear about the work that must be done locally and nationally by the electoral registration officers, where the funds will come from to meet the costs and whether local government will be given the additional finance it needs to deliver on that pledge. We must also be clear about the impact of the UK Government’s insistence on single voter registration on encouraging 16 and 17-year-olds to register for the referendum. Those are all serious issues that must be addressed before we move on to the substance of the question.
	There are other areas of concern, too. Perhaps the most obvious is the reluctance of the Scottish Government publicly to commit to accepting the decisions of the electoral Commission. The role of the Electoral Commission is clear and well rehearsed; it is an independent, experienced and trusted body, whose motive is only that of ensuring a fair contest and a fair outcome.
	Two areas of consideration are vital. The first is the fairness of the question. Can anything be of greater importance than ensuring that voters have a clear unbiased question? The second is to ensure that the spending limits of the respective campaigns are appropriate to allow a properly robust and informed debate.
	There is not universal approval of the wording of the question. Some say it is leading and some say it is likely to skew the result. I say, let the Electoral Commission decide. On our side of the argument, we know the result we want, and the nationalists know the result they want. It should not be for politicians to decide what the question should be; let us take it out of their hands. I am not saying that our question is better than an SNP question; I am saying that we should respect the right of an independent respected body to set the question. All political parties should accept its advice and move on, to give Scotland the debate it deserves.

Sheila Gilmore: One of the things the Electoral Commission can deliver is its experience in getting under the language used—for example, testing it with focus groups—to see whether people understand what the writer thinks they understand. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not about the politics, but about ensuring that the language is clear?

Anas Sarwar: I was coming to that very point. The Electoral Commission will test the question. Any advice it offers will be evidence-based. It will not be based on
	supposition by any Member of the House or of any other place, nor on opinion or myth; it will be based on evidence and rigorous testing.
	The job of the Electoral Commission is to ensure that the question is clear, understandable and decisive. If given that right, it will ensure that the question is unbiased and fair. Crucially, by accepting the decision of the Electoral Commission, the question will be seen, across Scotland and across the world, as unbiased and fair. It was somewhat surprising, therefore, to hear the chief executive of the Yes Scotland campaign be very clear in his evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee about the Electoral Commission advice:
	“There is always room left to disagree.”
	Yes, we can disagree, but trusting an independent body to deliver a fair question is another thing altogether.
	While those words are deeply concerning they also, I fear, reveal a worrying capacity for those in the yes camp to play fast and loose with vital checks and balances in the process. It is not just on the question that they appear prepared to ignore advice; given the SNP proposals, the issue of campaign funding also appears to be in its sights. The SNP Government want spending limits. That is absolutely reasonable and to be expected, but unfortunately, they want the spending limits to be set by them, not by the independent Electoral Commission. The spending limits will be set by legislation, but the SNP will control the legislation. There is a majority Government—in effect, a dictatorship in the Scottish Parliament—who will seek to do what is to their advantage.
	The SNP has already proposed spending limits at half the level, or even less, than those suggested by the Electoral Commission. It is worth considering the impact of the Scottish Government’s proposals. One of their proposals is that each campaign can spend a maximum of £750,000. That is half the £1.5 million allowed through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It is less than the £1.2 million that all the council candidates from each party could have spent collectively during last May’s council elections.
	I recognise that winning control of the great city of Glasgow and many other places was important for us as a political party, and more importantly, it was an opportunity for political parties to deliver their principles and values in local authorities, but are we seriously suggesting that the referendum on the future of Scotland—the most important decision we have made in 300 years—deserves to have less spent on it and is of less importance than a council election? I do not think so. That point needs to be reflected in the proposals for the spending framework.
	The SNP proposals will have an impact on other interested parties; for example, the trade union movement. Unite has approximately 150,000 members in Scotland, yet the SNP proposes that organisations such as Unite are limited to a maximum spend of £50,000. It does not take a mathematical genius to work out that Unite will not even be able to pay for the postage of a letter to each of its members, never mind pay for a leaflet or an envelope.
	It does not take a political genius to work out the SNP’s motives. There can be no convincing reason why the SNP would choose to set those limits. The court of public opinion will come to the conclusion that yet
	again, the SNP is seeking to manipulate the process for its own ends. I hope that it will rise to the occasion. I shall give SNP Members the opportunity to say whether they prefer to abide by the decision of the Electoral Commission or whether they wish to reconsider it. I hope that they will address that when they speak in the debate.
	By passing the motion we are setting out a clear legal position on the referendum, and by doing so we are passing responsibility from this place to the Scottish Government, and to all Members of the Scottish Parliament. That is a heavy responsibility that lies with the SNP Government and SNP Members because, perhaps uniquely in the Scottish Parliament, the party has an overall majority and a resulting built-in majority in committee, which places a greater responsibility on the party of government to live up to the highest ideals, judged not as members of the SNP but as parliamentarians and first and foremost as democrats. If done right, the legacy, whatever the outcome of the referendum, can be a Parliament of which we can all be proud, and a result in which we can all have faith. I commit myself and, I am sure, every single member of my party, to working for what is in the best interests of Scotland, whatever the outcome of the referendum. I hope that members of other political parties will do exactly the same. Scotland deserves nothing less.

Iain Stewart: I very much welcome the chance to participate in this important debate. It is a great pleasure once again to follow my fellow Hutchesonian, who made a powerful speech. If it does not damage his reputation even further, I shall point out that I agree with many of the points that he made, and I hope to build on them.
	In many respects, I wish that we were not having this debate. I am a staunch Unionist, and I believe in the United Kingdom. I wish that we did not have to contemplate at all the prospect of the United Kingdom splitting up into its constituent parts. I believe that that very process will cause uncertainty at a time when we need absolute certainty for our economy. There is evidence from Canada that the ongoing constitutional debate and the uncertainty of Quebec’s constitutional status damaged the economy in Quebec, and I wish that we were not in that position. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) made an important point from the perspective of his constituency about the uncertainty for the shipyards in Govan and elsewhere, and the fact that there will be no certainty on future orders while the constitutional question remains unresolved.
	We are where we are. I am a democrat, and I fully accept that the SNP won the majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament. However much opinion polls show that the constitutional question was, or was not, part of the debate in that election, it was part of the SNP manifesto, and it is perfectly legitimate for it to hold the referendum. I accept that the Scottish Parliament is the right forum in which to set the terms of the referendum, but it must be absolutely fair, clean and decisive.
	I wish to mention a few of my concerns. There must not be any question of gerrymandering with regard to the question, the electorate and the rules by which the campaign is fought. Many Members have expressed
	legitimate concerns about the prospects for the campaign. I commend members of the Scottish Affairs Committee for their insightful report, which highlighted a number of concerns.
	I want to concentrate on one or two misgivings about the franchise. The question of 16 and 17-year-olds voting has been raised. I completely accept that there is a legitimate debate to be had about whether the voting age should be lowered. Eighteen is not set in stone in this country: the age at which someone can vote has changed over the years and has been reduced in recent times. I get young people in my constituency calling on me to consider a reduction in the voting age. I have an open mind on the subject. My view is that we should agree on a common age of majority for a series of things. It is slightly daft that we have different ages of adulthood for learning to drive, voting, getting married, buying alcohol or tobacco, and serving in the armed forced. It is not beyond our wit to agree an age at which most young people achieve a degree of maturity and at which they can exercise adult decisions. I do not have a particular view about whether that should be 16, 17, 18 or some other age, but that is not the point.
	That debate should be had in general terms, not in the specific circumstances of one poll. It is utterly wrong that unilaterally for one election or one referendum we make a change, and for that not to apply elsewhere. Whether 16 and 17-year-olds are more likely to support the Union or independence is not the point. The debate should be had in general terms.

Pete Wishart: Following the Edinburgh agreement, this is the only election or referendum the Scottish Parliament will have control of. We have no say on UK elections. We do not even have a say on Scottish parliamentary elections. Of course, if we had responsibility for them, we would make sure that 16 and 17-year-olds could vote. We have crofter commissions and local government elections in which we can have 16 and 17-year-olds voting, but we do not have legislative responsibility for UK or Scottish parliamentary elections.

Iain Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is making a point about a continuing process of devolution and, in the future, it might fall within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to decide these things. That is a separate debate. But to make the decision unilaterally for one poll in what I believe is the self-interest of the party—whether that is misplaced or not is another question—is fundamentally wrong in my view.

Michael McCann: It might interest the hon. Gentleman to know that the Scottish Parliament does have control of other elections. It has control of local government elections and, in 2012, it decided not to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. I fear he may be getting incorrect information from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).

Iain Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful point of information. I return to the fundamental point. If the age of franchise is changed, it should apply to every election or none, and not to one poll. I do not have sufficient knowledge of the referendum
	on crofting, but I suspect that is not quite as significant an issue as the future of the United Kingdom. There should be consistency and the debate should be in general terms, not unilaterally for one poll.
	My next concern is about the electorate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) eloquently and powerfully explained, it is utterly wrong that an EU citizen temporarily living in Scotland should have a say on the future of the United Kingdom, but a Scot living in England does not. If I, for example, chose to live and work in Barcelona, I would not feel any right to take part in Catalonia’s future constitutional relationship with the rest of Spain. It would not cross my mind to exercise an opinion on that, so why should a Spaniard living in Edinburgh or wherever decide on the future of the United Kingdom?

Angus MacNeil: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s view but if I was so fortunate as to live in Barcelona and a Catalonian vote was called, I think I might express my opinion on the issue, given that it would affect me day to day. Perhaps that is a personal difference between the two of us, but I would care about the country and the environment in which I was living and therefore I would take part.

Iain Stewart: It is perfectly reasonable for someone living in a city or an area of a country to take part in very local polls concerning the local infrastructure and services. That is quite a different matter from someone being able to take part in a fundamental decision about the constitutional status of their home country.

Angus MacNeil: I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that the upstream issue is that all the matters that he is talking about are affected by the framework in which they operate. One of the reasons for wanting an independent Scotland was highlighted last week in the debate on the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. The majority of Scottish MPs were against it, yet it is being foisted on Scotland against the wishes of Scottish society. If we want to produce a welfare situation that is perfect and better for Scotland, we have to first sort out the constitutional framework around it before we can get to that point.

Iain Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is confusing a number of issues. He wants independence and separation so that Scotland can decide these things for itself. The point that I am making is that a EU citizen who is neither Scottish nor English would be able to influence that vote in Scotland, but a Scot living in England would not.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Iain Stewart: Forgive me, but I want to make progress.
	We all have opinions on the constitutional status of all sorts of countries. I have views on what should happen in the United States, Australia and Germany, but I do not seek to vote on them. It is fundamentally wrong that such a situation could exist. I echo the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest for a very simple change so that the franchise for Westminster elections also applied to Scotland. That would go a long way to removing many of the anomalies
	that have been mentioned with regard to members of the armed forces and their families not being able to take part in this poll. We call on these people to fight and to, potentially, give up their lives for their country, yet they will not be given the right to take part in its future direction.

Eleanor Laing: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the franchise were based on that used for UK Parliament elections, as he has just suggested, instead of on the local government franchise, that would also mean not only that Scots living outside Scotland would have a right to vote, but that people who are eligible to vote in UK parliamentary elections in other parts of the United Kingdom, but who were born in Scotland and can prove it, would, too?

Iain Stewart: My hon. Friend makes another excellent point and I echo it. The other key point is—I mentioned this in my intervention on her speech—that it is up to the Scottish Parliament to decide this. There is nothing in the order that prohibits that. I urge it to look reasonably and rationally at the issue. The referendum must be fair if it is to have legitimacy. If it does not have legitimacy, I fear that we will just perpetuate uncertainty.
	That leads me to my next point, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also made in his opening speech. The referendum must be the end of the matter. Whatever the result, it must be clear and binding. As my right hon. Friend also said, if the decision is a yes vote—I fervently hope that it will be a massive no vote—negotiations will have to begin. I want clarity from those on the Government Front Bench on what will happen if there is a very narrow yes vote and negotiations begin on the terms of the divorce. What if the reality does not match the separatists’ rhetoric on issues such as Scotland’s membership of the EU, adoption of the single currency or any one of the number of issues that are coming to light? What if the deal for Scotland is not nearly as favourable as first envisaged? Is there scope for a second referendum within the time scale, the end date of which is 31 December 2014? Either way, I do not want a second referendum to be called in the event of a narrow yes or no vote. The decision has to be clear and final, to avoid the kind of ongoing uncertainty that existed in Quebec following a narrow no vote. That vote did not end the matter, and the separatists have come back again and again to try to get their way. Thankfully, they have not achieved it. There could be a similar danger here, and I would like clarification on what such a situation would mean for Scotland and the United Kingdom.
	On the timing of the referendum, I wish that we could just get on with it. I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest on this matter, although she was right to say that the longer the debate goes on, the more the unsavoury consequences of separation and the confusion of the SNP’s position come to light.

Angus MacNeil: This talk of uncertainty seems to be unfounded, as many investors have come to Scotland in the past year. Certainly, the only time I have heard the subject raised has been in the context of the US Government recently getting worried about the noises coming from Conservative the party about leaving the European Union. Does the hon. Gentleman think that such talk in the Conservative party should end?

Iain Stewart: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. Constitutional uncertainty is potentially dangerous for the economy, although I am sure that you would rule me out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I started to talk about the EU argument. The danger for Scotland is real, however. This ongoing uncertainty could be very damaging, not only for Scotland’s economy but for the economy of the whole United Kingdom. I am a fervent Unionist, and I believe that we are better together. The terms of the referendum must be clear and fair, and the result must be one that can be accepted. I wish that we could just get on and have the referendum as soon as possible.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. This debate is time limited, and the wind-ups will start at 6.30 pm, so I must ask Members for self-discipline and time restraint to ensure that everyone may be heard.

Anne McGuire: I will certainly try to be brief. I want first to hark back to my intervention on the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing). I noticed the look of surprise on many faces around the Chamber at the time, and I wonder whether we could get some clarification on the franchise question. I have certainly heard of an electoral registration officer saying that a person had to spend 50% of their time in their place of residence before the officer would be willing to register them to vote there. Given that the question of the franchise for this referendum is so complicated, a bit of clarity would be helpful. If the hon. Lady’s interpretation of it is correct, I would suggest that she was not over-egging her pudding but that she has instead brought forth a political confection worthy of Mary Berry.
	It was a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) this afternoon. He encapsulated many of the arguments that have been around Scottish politics for many years. I also want to support the section 30 order, and in doing so I congratulate the Secretary of State on the way in which he has conducted himself, not only during the negotiations but over the past few days. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) is in his place. He toured the media and the radio stations trying to provoke a negotiation before a decision had been made, and the Secretary of State was quite right to say that we would have the referendum and look at the decision before moving to the next stage, whatever it might be. The hon. Member for Moray should look at what he said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle). When she asked him about nuclear submarines and the defence question, he told her that no negotiation could take place until the country had made a decision.I hope that he will reflect on that over the next few days.
	It is right that the Scottish Government should have the right to make the referendum in Scotland. This is about the spirit of devolution and about this Parliament handing over authority. That we are doing so calls into question the charge that is often made about Westminster: that we want to keep control. This is about giving control away. I think that this Parliament should get
	credit for being willing to hand over this responsibility, with no ifs, buts or maybes. That is the true spirit of devolution.
	This debate has divided Scotland for most of my political life. The pursuit and achievement of a separate Scotland, to which the hon. Gentlemen from the Scottish National party are only too willing to commit themselves, would take Scotland out of the United Kingdom. What motivates them above all else is their desire to see the break-up of the UK—the most successful political and social union. And yet, as we have heard from the contributions today, there is integration across the United Kingdom. There are Scots living in England, Northern Ireland and Wales, and there are Welsh, English and Northern Irish people living in Scotland. It is that integration that is causing some of the complications—some would say anomalies—in who is entitled to vote.
	This Parliament must have respect for the Scottish Parliament, but respect is a two-way process. I beseech the hon. Gentlemen who represent the Scottish National party in this House to stop setting up Aunt Sallies by making out that Westminster is trying to do them down. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is a serial offender. This morning, he tried to suggest that the Labour Opposition might abstain in today’s vote. We have made it very clear from the beginning that we support the section 30 order. Frankly, it is not worthy of somebody who wants to be a parliamentarian and statesman in Scotland to pretend that other political parties are not being honourable in this matter. Mr Speaker may be interested to know that he also called into question the impartiality of the Chair. I hope that he does get to speak, because he accused this House of being almost exclusively Unionist in the people it calls and said that the SNP would get only 10 minutes. Well, the hon. Member for Moray spoke for 15 minutes earlier, so we have superseded the aspirations of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire.
	I raise those points because if we are to spend the next 18 months talking about the future of Scotland, we must do so from a point of mutual respect and stop throwing brickbats at each other and denigrating those who do not agree with us. This is the most important issue that most of us will ever face, not just for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren, regardless of which side of the argument we are on. A little mutual respect would not go amiss.

Angus MacNeil: Say something nice about us then.

Anne McGuire: I will not even go there. The hon. Gentleman knows whether I want to say anything nice about him. He is a pleasant enough person outside the Chamber. Sadly, in the Chamber he tends to heckle rather than make positive contributions.
	I will move on to the issues that have been raised today. The first is the role of the Electoral Commission. We need to have an independent arbiter on the wording of the question and the financing of the campaigns. All sides need to have confidence in the process. That means that it should not be subject to political interference and that one element must not be able to overrule the others. I hope that when we hear the hon. Member for
	Perth and North Perthshire later in the debate, he will give us some comfort and say that the SNP will not second-guess the Electoral Commission, but will work with it in producing a question and a set of criteria that we can all work to and have confidence in.
	The Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee said earlier that the question preferred by the Scottish Government was put to a series of independent experts who suggested that it was politically loaded. We cannot go into a referendum debate where the question is politically loaded.

Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Lady remind me of the question that the commission that her party put together with the Conservative and the Liberals came up with?

Anne McGuire: I am not quite sure what the point of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention is.

Pete Wishart: A Unionist commission was put together to try to determine a question for the referendum that it thought was fair. Will the right hon. Lady remind me what question it decided on?

Anne McGuire: That is a typical red herring being drawn across. We say that we want—[Interruption.]No. The Electoral Commission should be, and is to all intents and purposes, the independent arbiter. The Labour party when it was in government, and even the Conservatives, have accepted that if an independent arbiter is appointed, it is incumbent on the Government to honour that public authority and take into account the views of that independent arbiter.
	I said that I would not speak for too long so I will not. However, we cannot go into the next 18 months in a spirit that is about beating each other over the head with arguments and counter-arguments that are sometimes not even relevant. I ask all sides to come together and have a robust, frank and mature debate with the Scottish people. That is what the referendum campaign demands.
	I represent the constituency of Stirling which includes the Church of the Holy Rude where the first crowned king of the United Kingdom—King James VI and I—was crowned and became the monarch of the United Kingdom. My area also includes Bannockburn and Stirling bridge, and saw Rob Roy MacGregor and all the rest of the iconic figures in Scottish history. This debate, however, is not about the 13th, 14th or 17th century; it is about the 21st century. I am happy to give over, under a section 30 order, powers to the Scottish Parliament.
	I voted for the Scottish Parliament and I want it to succeed. I want us to remain part of the United Kingdom, and if we hand over that power, the Scottish Parliament has the responsibility to exercise it with maturity and discretion, and to recognise that the current Scottish Government do not represent all the views of the entire Scottish people. Yes, we hand over that power—perhaps not with eagerness but with some understanding of the constitutional arrangements within the United Kingdom—but the responsibility is with the Scottish Government to exercise that power with discretion and an understanding of the multiplicity of views.

Ian Murray: It is a great privilege to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire). She has just given 10 minutes of a wonderful speech that welcomed the section 30 order and highlighted the dangers ahead of us. It is also a great pleasure to take part in the same debate as my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling). He gave a powerful and influential speech, which is why he is chair of the Better Together campaign. I can think of no one better to keep the United Kingdom together.
	I want to reflect a little on the speech of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who is no longer in his seat. He gave the House an historical canter through Scotland and its relationship with England, and spoke of how parliamentary Chambers and institutions hold people together and become the focal point of where people do things. It is worth reflecting that everyone in this Chamber who has an accent similar to mine or calls themselves Scots can go abroad anywhere in the world, to the four corners of the globe, and chat to people from different countries who think that Scotland is already a separate country because it has its own separate identity, dialect and history. Indeed, constitutionally, being part of the UK means that we can benefit as a country from being part of that Union, while also sharing the wonderful opportunities that having a separate identity as a nation and being Scots brings. We should reflect on that; indeed, the hon. Gentleman allowed us to do so.
	Our consideration of this section 30 order is quite an historic moment, because when we pass it this evening—and when it is passed in the other place—it will go north to the Scottish Parliament, which will then have all the powers it requires to run the referendum on separation. I am pleased that that is happening today for a number of reasons, but mainly because it is this party—the Scottish Labour party—that is the party of devolution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland said, one of the first Acts of the new Labour Government in 1997 was to bring forward the referendum to allow the people of Scotland to decide whether they wanted the Scottish Parliament.

Sheila Gilmore: One of the things I particularly remember is that we had a general election in May of that year and the referendum at the beginning of September—a piece of speedy action that the current Scottish Government could do with emulating.

Ian Murray: I am delighted that my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour has made that point. We should reflect on the fact—the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), the leader of the SNP in this House, mentioned this in his contribution—that the SNP has been in existence for 75 years pushing this constitutional point, but does not quite know the answers to the big questions now that they are being asked. With consensus from most Members in the House, the Labour Government were able to proceed with the referendum speedily and give the Scottish people their opportunity to decide whether they wanted a Scottish Parliament.
	The process did not stop there, because it was those of us on these Benches—the Scottish Labour party—who
	delivered the Calman commission and the Scotland Act 1998. Devolution was always supposed to be a process. The 1999 commencement of the Scottish Parliament was never supposed to be the full stop in this constitutional journey, which has continued. Crucially, however, it has continued only under the Scottish Labour party. The Scottish National party has now taken control of the Scottish Parliament. What we have seen since 2007—although more so since 2011—is a party that has taken the wonderful institution that is the Scottish Parliament and turned it into little more than a talking shop for the ruling party, with commanding majorities on its scrutiny Committees. We have only to think about some of the Committees in this House to see how powerful that scrutiny process can be in holding the Executive to account. I can think of numerous occasions on which that has happened, including a Backbench Business debate in the House last week—prompted by a report from the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills—that changed the Government’s policy on dealing with pub companies. That happened because of the power of the Committees in this House.

Gemma Doyle: Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that the Deputy First Minister has today written a blog piece, which is posted on a Scottish Government website—she has indicated that she will now do this regularly—in which she says that all Departments and parts of the Scottish Government are now working on a transition process? Is he as concerned as I am about the amount of public money—taxpayers’ money—that is now being spent on a political campaign when it could be used to tackle Scotland’s shocking levels of long-term unemployment?

Ian Murray: I am delighted by that intervention, because it shows the entire raison d’être of the current majority in the Scottish Parliament—a Parliament that was not designed for any one party to get a majority, as the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) said. Now that the SNP has the trust of the Scottish people—who have given it a mandate through its majority in the Scottish Parliament—it is using all the power that has been bestowed on it to deliver constitutional change, rather than dealing not just with long-term unemployment, but with the absolutely shameful scenes of queues outside food banks such as in my constituency. I would rather that the entire effort of the civil service and the Scottish Parliament were focused on those issues, not just on dealing with the constitution. Many Members on the Labour Benches who talk to their constituents on the doorsteps realise that the issues out there are far wider than the constitution, which ranks very low down on the list of priorities of the people of Scotland.
	The latest piece of devolution that we have in our hands today is the biggest question of all to be given to the Scottish people. Some have used the phrase, “a referendum made in Scotland”. This has to be a referendum not only made in Scotland, but by the Scottish people: not a referendum concocted by the First Minister and the SNP, not a referendum that is to deceive, and not a referendum that is unclear, ambiguous or a sham. That is why consensus in the Scottish Parliament is so important. In every major constitutional debate about Scotland in this House and in the other place under the previous Government, we sought consensus. Consensus is the way to take devolution work forward and to provide trust to the Scottish people.
	The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs commented on that point in the report it produced last week, as the Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), mentioned earlier. I will not give a précis of that speech for the SNP Members who staged a walk-out when he was speaking. The Committee’s report concluded that while the Scottish Parliament will have full powers to run the referendum following the passing of the section 30 order, it should not just force through decisions using the SNP’s parliamentary majority, and consensus should be sought to make the referendum fair, concise and conclusive.
	I worry about that aspect. Can we trust—here is another Scottish word for the Hansard reporters—the sleekit First Minister and the SNP to do what is in the best interests of Scotland, rather than what is in the best interests of the First Minister and the SNP? I think the jury is well and truly out on that point. The track record of the SNP and the First Minister on a variety of issues in the past few months has cast doubt on their ability to be fair, transparent and honest about the referendum and the consequences for the future of my country. We have had the First Minister’s confusion about whether he received advice on Scotland’s membership of the European Union. We have had a flip-flop on what Scotland’s currency would be. Would it be the euro, the pound, or the groat? We have even had suggestions from SNP Members that we might even use the Chinese renminbi in Scotland. We have had the First Minister taking credit when unemployment in Scotland has been falling, but blaming everyone else when it has been going up.

Michael McCann: Does my hon. Friend share my concerns about the head of the Scottish civil service? It has been accused in the past by many people of being native and refusing to speak truth to power. Is it not a concern that, when it comes to the referendum, it will not have the courage to speak up against the First Minister who controls all?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are in danger. We are debating the section 30 order, rather than the referendum. A lot of Members want to speak, so I do not want to tempt Members on to another subject.

Ian Murray: I will take your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend has his remarks on the record. That issue will be a concern to many Members of this House and to the people of Scotland.
	I was going through issues on which I have concerns about the section 30 order, and what the SNP Government might do with it. I was talking about the First Minister taking credit for falling unemployment, but blaming everyone else when it goes up. We have had the arc of prosperity with Ireland and Iceland, until they went bust; then it was Norway, and now it is back to Iceland again. We have been told that Scots should not have taken part in Team GB, but the First Minister has taken credit for the gold medals—indeed, some SNP Members in this House play in the UK parliamentary football team. The issues are there for people to see.
	We have seen the SNP Government espouse a nuclear-free Clyde, while changing their 60-year opposition to NATO. They want a nuclear-free Scotland, but it is okay for a US submarine to sail into Faslane and launch a nuclear weapon from Scottish shores. That is a ludicrous position which is yet another fudge on the Scottish people. They are changing their own rules to suit themselves, and that is why they might change the rules of the section 30 order to suit the referendum. Mr Deputy Speaker, I sense that I may be ruled out of order shortly, so I will say merely that the list is endless, and move on.
	To emphasise what the Scottish Affairs Committee has said, the Scottish Government cannot be both player and referee with regard to section 30. The Electoral Commission has a vital role as an independent overseer of the process that includes critical aspects of funding and, most importantly, the wording of the question. The commission sent an updated briefing to hon. Members, and the first thing it says about the section 30 order is that the commission will have responsibility at the referendum for assessing the intelligibility of the proposed question. That is a critical part of its involvement, and this is where my discomfort lies.
	The Minister deserves credit, along with the Secretary of State, but he was questioned in the House more than a dozen times during the debate on the Edinburgh agreement about what mechanics would be used if the Scottish Government ignored the commission’s recommendations, and all he could say was that he was confident that the Scottish Government would do the right thing and that the Scottish people would judge their actions. The SNP’s track record on straight answers about Scotland’s future shows that it has form in this area, and it would be wrong not to put on record that that is a real concern. The commission has been involved in every election in recent history. Its involvement in the AV referendum resulted in the question being changed on several occasions until it and the Government were satisfied that it was fair. No Government have ever overruled the commission, and the First Minister should not be the first to do so. This decision is the most important that Scotland has faced for 300 years, and that makes the role of the commission integral to the entire referendum process.
	The commission’s role is also integral to campaign funding. The order does not give any details about funding, so it will be dictated by the memorandum of agreement between both Governments signed as part of the Edinburgh agreement. The commission will make recommendations after a consultation, but the SNP has already indicated that it would overrule the commission on several points, including in respect of much lower limits for businesses and unions to campaign, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), the deputy leader of the Scottish Labour party, indicated. Those limits are much lower than those recommended for the AV and Welsh referendums in respect of the umbrella campaigning groups and, as he also said—this point stuck in my head—even lower than for local government elections. Those of us who have helped run those elections know how low those limits are for getting information out to electors and voters, who deserve to have the information in front of them so that they can make an informed decision. The people of Scotland deserve as much information as possible in order for them to decide whether Scotland is better together or separate from the rest of the UK.
	Then, there is the question itself. The SNP has been challenged time and time again to say whether it would abide by the commission’s recommendations on the question, but it has refused to commit to answering. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), the leader of the SNP in the House, was questioned four times during his contribution, and all he could say was that the Scottish Parliament would have regard to the recommendations. Any SNP Member could intervene now and say, “Yes, it’s a matter for the Scottish Parliament, but the SNP and the Yes Scotland campaign will abide by the recommendations, whatever they are, of the commission.” The fact that they have not done that sends out a very strong message that our concerns about the question, with regards to the section 30 order, are not just valid but very real.
	It is critical that the commission’s recommendations be respected, otherwise the Scottish people will not get the fair and transparent referendum that they ought to have. The section 30 order passes the power to the Scottish Parliament, and I am proud that the party with a track record of devolution will be wholeheartedly supporting it. We will continue to scrutinise the process both in this place and in Holyrood to ensure that the decision is decisive, legal and fair.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I remind Members that we are going to finish the Back-Bench speeches at 6.30 pm, which allows each Member about 10 or 11 minutes. If some Members creep over that, however, someone will drop off the edge, and that would not be fair.

Mark Lazarowicz: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). It makes me the third Edinburgh Member to take part in the debate—the other two have been around the Chamber, so we might make it a full house by the end of the evening, depending on the time available.
	I welcome the fact that the agreement between the UK and Scottish Governments on the section 30 order was reached relatively speedily, because it would have soured the debate in Scotland, if there had been continuing disagreement—or, worse still, dispute, leading to legal challenge—over the terms of the referendum. It is right and necessary that the referendum proceeds on the basis of agreement between the two Governments and Parliaments.
	It is certainly true, of course, that the Scottish Government were elected with a clear mandate to hold a referendum on independence. If we add together the minority parties, almost a majority of the electorate voted that way. I recognise that, but equally, as one of my hon. Friends said earlier, we in this House have a mandate from the people of Scotland—a mandate achieved just one year before the Scottish Parliament elections. All the parties put to the Scottish people their own constitutional programmes as part of their general election manifestos. At that point, the results were somewhat different. It is right that there should be agreement—not just between Governments, but across parties—and I
	welcome how that was achieved quite speedily through negotiations. I pay tribute to all those involved in that achievement.
	It is good that an agreement should be reached on an all-party basis. I accept that all parties here—at the end of the day, all Members from Scotland—want to do what is best for Scotland. We obviously have different interpretations and opinions of what that means, but I accept that this is the overriding intention from all sides. Whatever our different views in the constitutional debate, it is essential, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) said, to conduct these debates in as mature and inclusive fashion as we can, while recognising the strongly held emotions and views on both sides of the debate.
	That is because we need to recognise one important fact—whatever happens in the referendum, the next morning we will all get up in the same country, with the same people facing the same issues and the same problems, with the same strengths and weaknesses and probably the same weather, perhaps regrettably, as we had before the referendum. Depending on the result of referendum, of course, hundreds of thousands or millions of people in Scotland will either be delighted or shocked by the result. If the vote for separation wins—the indication is that it will not, but nothing is certain—those who are strongly committed to the UK will be bitterly disappointed. If the people of Scotland vote to stay in the UK, many who have campaigned for independence, in some cases for all their lives, will be equally bitterly disappointed.
	The worst outcome for Scotland and rest of UK would be if the referendum were to be followed by a period of rancour and division rather than one where all in Scotland tried to make the outcome, whatever it was, work as well as it could for both Scotland and the UK. If the result is a win for independence, it would, as the Secretary of State pointed out earlier, be the duty of Scottish politicians who were against separation to make sure that the new arrangements between Scotland, the rest of UK and the EU work as well as possible. Equally, if independence is rejected, as I think it will be, those politicians who have campaigned for independence should accept the result, urge all their supporters to do so as well, and make it clear that the result is, if not for all time—I understand that people will not want to say for ever—at least valid for a generation, as has been said in the past. I hope that they will accept the result and not seek to overturn it at the first opportunity.
	The tone of that post-referendum debate—and, indeed, the tone before it—will be significantly affected by how the participants and voters on both sides feel about the way the pre-referendum debate was conducted. If there is a feeling that the rules of the campaign have been bent or twisted to benefit one side or the other, there will be a much higher chance of the debate, both before and after the referendum, being diverted into issues of process and becoming bitter and negative, rather than being one on the fundamental issues. That is why I share the hope that the Scottish Government will approach the use of the powers devolved to them in as consensual a manner as possible, given the obvious differences between all concerned on the fundamental issues. I believe that the SNP needs to make greater progress and to show a greater commitment to consensus on that issue.
	The ground rules need to be clearer in a number of respects, so let me spend a couple of minutes explaining them. First, I strongly agree with colleagues about the importance of the Electoral Commission’s supervision of the electoral rules, and I believe agreement on the question is essential. I can understand why the SNP leader here will not give a blanket commitment to accept the Electoral Commission’s recommendations whatever they say and in whatever circumstances, but a much stronger indication of a willingness to accept those recommendations would certainly have been welcome today. I hope that the SNP will reflect on that and recognise that, as the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) said, flouting those recommendations might jeopardise their own case in the referendum as well as the nature of the debate.
	Certainly, fair rules are needed on spending limits; I will not go over the points that have been made on that. Fair rules are also needed on how the civil service is used, and I endorse the comments that have been made on that.
	On votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, I believe that some of the practical difficulties can be overcome, but I do not have time to go into those in detail. If there are to be such votes, however, every effort should be made to give all 16 and 17-year-olds the ability to vote. At one stage in the process, there was a suggestion that they could opt in—apply to have a vote—but that would be a recipe for an undemocratic outcome and a lower participation rate. They should be added to the register either through the normal process in October, or through a special canvass directed specifically at 16 and 17-year-olds to ensure that all of them, not just a select handful, can vote.
	The franchise issue has been raised by colleagues on both sides of the House. Although I understand some of the questions raised about the agreement between the parties and the two Parliaments, ultimately the most consistent and logical way forward is to base the voting qualification for the referendum on that for Scottish Parliament elections. Any choice of franchise has anomalies, but that is the simplest solution. I understand the point expressed by those who asked why Scots living outside Scotland should not be allowed to vote in the referendum, but it does not stand up to much examination once we consider some of the practical difficulties. It sounds a good idea in theory for Scottish Olympic champions and medal winners living outside Scotland to be able to vote, but why stick to those who won medals in 2012? Why not include those who won medals in 2008 or 2004? Why not include Commonwealth games champions from 2014 or 2010? The list goes on.
	The issue of well known, leading Scottish football managers outside Scotland was raised. I suspect that there might be Scottish football managers quite a long way down the English football divisions and beyond. Where do we draw the line on who is allowed to vote? The suggestion was made—in all seriousness, I think—that people who were born but were no longer living in Scotland should be allowed to vote. Again, that would involve anomalies that could not be overcome: someone who had been born in Germany to Scottish service personnel and their families, who came back to Scotland for 40 years and then left Scotland, would not be
	allowed to vote, while somebody who had been born in Scotland and whose parents left three days later would be allowed to do so.
	There is also an issue of wider principle. If we move away from the idea that voters in the referendum are those who have chosen to or, by birth, live and work in Scotland and have made or are making a continuing commitment in Scotland, we inevitably move to a different basis for the franchise and a definition based on ethnicity, racial origins or something of that nature. Once we do that, we can unleash, although I am sure that no Member intends that, all sorts of emotions and dark forces. In Quebec, for example, when the last referendum vote was very close, some of those who supported Quebec independence objected to the fact that English Canadians took part in the vote. The SNP has, as a party—all credit to it—accepted that its nationalism is based on a civic nationalism of those who live and work in Scotland. That has contributed to the fact that, for the most part, we have escaped some of the excesses that have existed in other countries when there have been nationalism debates. We want to keep it that way.
	I accept that there are issues about people who have temporarily left Scotland for work—above all, the question of the forces—which I hope the Scottish Parliament will address in its decisions.
	Finally, I want to say something about whether we can trust the SNP in relation to its commitment to the Edinburgh agreement. While I am as ready as any of my colleagues to wonder about the extent of its commitment to the spirit as well as the letter of the agreement, I strongly agree with the right hon. Member for Gordon and others who have pointed out that in the event of any blatant misuse of the powers devolved by the order, the SNP—which supports independence for Scotland—would lose out in the referendum process and the referendum debate. We should bear it in mind that we are devolving secondary-legislation powers to the Scottish Parliament, and that if those powers were blatantly misused, the issue would arise of whether they were being used consistently with the powers devolved to it under the Scotland Act. In that context, there could, in the last resort, be a legal challenge.
	I would rather the referendum had taken place by now, and I would certainly rather it took place before October 2014, but that date is not so far away now. I am confident that, just as in 1997 the people of Scotland made a mature decision to back the establishment of a devolved Scottish Parliament, they will decide on this occasion to stand by the Union that has served Scotland well for more than 300 years. I look forward to their having the opportunity to express their views in the referendum, and then to build firmly on the success that devolution has proved to be since it was established in 1999.

Graeme Morrice: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to participate in this important debate on the constitutional future of Scotland. It is a pleasure to follow a Lothians colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). I also welcomed the Secretary of State’s introductory remarks, and also those of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), who spoke with passion and determination.
	Although the order is technical in nature and part of a complicated statutory process, it is important for us not to lose sight of the bigger picture: the kind of Scotland in which we all wish to live in the future. Scotland’s constitutional future is about the people of Scotland, and not about the machinations of the political classes. It is therefore vital—especially given the divergence of views on the question of separation —for this process, and the eventual referendum, to be free of partisan interference. Of course the campaign itself will be intensely political, as is only right and proper in a democratic system, but the statutory mechanism that affords that opportunity must be free of undue influence on the part of politicians from either Parliament. By supporting the order, the House can ensure that the UK Parliament plays its constitutional role by legislating and thus providing the Scottish Parliament with the legal footing required to hold a referendum in 2014, although many of us believe that it should be held earlier in order to end the ongoing uncertainty of Scotland’s future. As I have said, it is also of the utmost importance for these powers to be used with a great deal of responsibility, and with the best interests of the people of Scotland in mind.
	The order guarantees that the referendum will be made in Scotland, and that supporters of separation will not be able to assign any blame to Westminster with any legitimacy or credibility if they disagree with its outcome. However, I and many other people are worried that the SNP Scottish Government may attempt to steal an unfair advantage through the way they set the rules. Therefore, as we have heard time and again in our debate, the role of the Electoral Commission is crucial. It can act as an unbiased and impartial referee, as opposed to Alex Salmond being both player and referee. The involvement of the Electoral Commission would be a significant step in ensuring that the referendum is fair, legal and decisive. Without its involvement and, crucially, the acceptance by all of its advice and guidance, I will remain unconvinced that the SNP majority in the Scottish Parliament will not manipulate the situation for its own narrow nationalistic ends.
	There are some specific areas of concern, the first of which is the proposed question. An impartial body should play the prime role in setting the exact wording of the question, the answer to which could change the future direction of Scotland for ever. It will be the most important decision taken by the Scottish people in over 300 years. The SNP has already attempted to use its majority in the Scottish Parliament to propose questions it believes will deliver its desired outcome. Those questions have been deemed biased by the cross-party Scottish Affairs Committee, as we heard earlier from its esteemed Chair. Reassuringly, this order highlights that there should be one question, to ensure the outcome is decisive, not blurred as a result of there being an additional question on an as yet undefined proposition.
	Without the input of the Electoral Commission, the question of the referendum date could also be a concern. The SNP Scottish Government have already delayed holding the referendum until autumn 2014, believing, I suspect, that the anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn will somehow stir the “Braveheart” feelings that the SNP believes are latent in us all, but inciting the politics of identity and ethnicity is neither a progressive nor modern thing to do in what is a diverse and multicultural world.
	A further concern is the suggested extreme limitation on spending during the referendum campaign. The SNP Scottish Government have proposed an even lower sum than the Electoral Commission. That could endanger the ability of campaigners to communicate their message effectively to the electorate. Meanwhile, the First Minister will retain his £1 million army of spin doctors throughout the duration of the campaign. Foreign donations should be unacceptable, too. All these concerns could be kept firmly in check through the Electoral Commission playing its authoritative and impartial role.
	I believe voter franchise is important and take the view that 16 and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote in the referendum—although I accept the questions raised about the practicalities, and also believe that if we do extend the franchise to that age group, we must ensure that all 16 and 17-year-olds have the opportunity to vote. However, I also believe Scottish armed services personnel residing or serving outwith Scotland should be able to participate in the referendum. We have discussed that point at length today.
	In conclusion, it is essential that the referendum mechanism is determined by those who are outwith the argument, namely the Electoral Commission. Such an important and irrevocable decision must be clear of opportunistic politics from both sides of the argument, in order to guarantee that the outcome is decisive, not subject to drawn-out legal challenge and, most importantly, fair. I hope that, with these parameters agreed by both sides in the debate, the decision will be accepted by all, for the sake of our nation.

Pete Wishart: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice); we all, in this House, enjoy hearing him reading out his speech to such great effect. I turned up to this Chamber—[Interruption.] I managed to get through two sentences before, as you have noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, the hecklers started to kick in. Many people in Scotland have been watching today’s debate, and I wish the cameras could pan across on to the hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches to show the ugly face of Westminster Unionism. I was on my feet for two sentences before the heckling started and the attempts to shout me down began. Unfortunately, we commonly see that in this House.

Fiona O'Donnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Pete Wishart: No, I am not giving way to the hon. Lady. When I came here today, I thought that we were going to have a good, positive debate. I thought that we all agreed that devolving this power to the Scottish Parliament under section 30 was a good idea, but what have we seen? We have had such a sour debate today. We have heard personal attacks, once again, on the First Minister—we do expect those. We have heard a surly acceptance of the fact that the Scottish Parliament has a right to deliver this referendum—a thing both Governments have agreed. I thought that today would be almost a joyous affair, which is why it has been so depressing to listen to one dreary speech after the next, and all the incessant and consistent negativity. [Interruption.] Here we go again, Mr Deputy Speaker. I really hope that the people of Scotland are watching
	this, because they have to see how Labour Members respond to these debates. They are not interested in listening to the other part of the debate, and it is very unfortunate that, again and again, we have to listen to these voices attempting to shut things down. I believe it is a pleasure and privilege to speak in today’s debate.

Jim McGovern: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us why his whole party disappeared and, presumably, watched the debate on television, rather than be here.

Pete Wishart: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here at the time. I believe he is referring to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), and I was there for 20 minutes of his speech—

Jim McGovern: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not refer to any Member.

Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a point of order. Obviously, I am sure that hon. Members are desperate to get on to the debate on the section 30 order instead of picking each other off; I am sure that that is what we all want to hear.

Pete Wishart: Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. If he wants to have another go, I am prepared to give way to him, but I had no idea what he was suggesting then.

Jim McGovern: It appeared to me that the whole SNP group disappeared earlier for quite some time, and presumably they watched the debate on TV. I did not refer to any other Member of this House being a factor in that.

Pete Wishart: Yes, I was out of the House—we have been here for five hours, and Members come and go outside the House. I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman’s point is.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. It does not really matter whether somebody is in, out or indifferent. I am not really concerned about that. I am concerned about this debate, and we all want to hear what Pete Wishart wants to contribute.

Pete Wishart: Perhaps at last we can get on to the substance of this debate. I was so looking forward to debating this measure. Who would have thought that we would be here today confirming Scotland’s opportunity to determine its own future? We have the possibility and prospect of Scotland becoming a self-governing nation once again, joining the community of nations and making its own peaceful contribution to world affairs. We have the chance to become a country of our own, to make decisions for ourselves and to stand tall, with dignity, self-respect and pride, in the world. This is a fantastic moment, and I am pleased that we are here today debating the possibility, through this order, of Scotland achieving that very fine ambition.

Eleanor Laing: rose—

Pete Wishart: Of course I will give way to the hon. Lady—we cannot hear enough from her.

Eleanor Laing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Scotland already stands tall and proud as a nation in the world as part of the United Kingdom?

Pete Wishart: Absolutely, and is it not fantastic and fascinating that we have been able to achieve that? But let us imagine what more we can achieve. Let us imagine Scotland not getting involved in things such as illegal wars, not hosting weapons of mass destruction such as Trident but making a peaceful contribution to world affairs, and not doing what we have seen in the past 10 years. That is a Scotland I aspire to. That is what I think the Scottish people will choose once they have the opportunity to make this decision, and that is what is so exciting and so transformative about this whole debate—we have the possibility and prospect that our nation can once again become independent and make its own role in the world. There is nothing finer than that as an ambition, and I look forward to taking that debate forward.
	Many people fought for that right. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) talked about some of the giants of the Scottish National party, who stood in this Chamber, exposed as we are continually and consistently to the barrage of overwhelming Unionist hostility—shouted down before we even get the first syllable out—but they still stood here and put the case for Scotland’s right to choose. I joined this party 20 years ago, in 1993, and Labour used to joke about the slogan, “Free by ’93”—it was quite a good joke. Now it is 63% and 2013—that is the difference. My hon. Friend was spot on: that has been achieved by the hard work of the Scottish National party Members of Parliament who inhabit these Benches and who have taken forward the case in the face of overwhelming hostility to and contempt for the idea of Scottish independence. They plugged away, they fought, they put the case and now they will be rewarded with a real opportunity for the Scottish people to make the decision on their own.
	I want to pay tribute not just to the giants of our movement who have fought so hard to achieve this result but to the ordinary activists—the people who turn up on cold, frozen Saturday mornings to hand out leaflets and encourage people to put the best interests of their country first. They do that week in, week out. They include people like my constituent John Cullens, who died just last year, still trying to serve his nation. He fought alongside me to try to secure electoral victory in Perth and North Perthshire and was so excited about the prospect of a referendum for Scotland that he was always the first there and always the last to leave. As well as the giants of the party to whom my hon. Friend referred, let us remember the hard-working activists who have worked day in, day out to try to secure this result for our nation.
	I want to congratulate both Governments and to pay tribute to the Minister, too, who worked exceptionally hard to deliver the Edinburgh agreement. I thought that the Secretary of State’s speech was the best today by far—it went way above any of the dreary speeches we heard from those on the Labour Benches, with their incessant negativity. It was good to hear from the Secretary of State. I also want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy). He made a thoughtful and non-partisan speech and was prepared to recognise some of the things in the Edinburgh agreement, including how we were prepared to make progress. That is what the Edinburgh agreement was all
	about: two Governments working together. Even though there is a division between our strongly felt beliefs, we can still sit down together and come together for the common purpose of ensuring that the people of Scotland get the referendum to which they are entitled and that they deserve. Why can we not continue in the spirit engendered by the Edinburgh agreement? Why can we not start to debate the possibility of both options?
	I paid tribute to the Secretary of State, but it was disappointing to hear his remarks over the weekend, when he said that he was not prepared even to consider some of the technical details of a yes vote in the referendum. Surely we owe it to the Scottish people to try to do some sort of preparatory work in case there is a yes vote—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman a little. I am sure that he wants to concentrate on the section 30 order rather than trying to drag the Ministers into a debate on the outcome of the referendum. We are not going to do that.

Pete Wishart: That is the point, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think we should consolidate the good will that led to the Edinburgh agreement. It is important that we start to build on that. Let us see what we can do to try to ensure that that spirit of co-operation between the two Governments continues throughout the referendum process so that we continue to serve the best interests of both Governments. Let us try to make the debate as respectful as possible.
	Some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) were unfortunate. He talked about bringing respect into the debate, so let us do that. Let us stop referring to people as foreigners. Let us stop talking about border patrols. That brings no credit to our debate, so, please, if we can, let us leave that to the past. Instead, let us refer to people as friends and neighbours. That is what we should do throughout the debate. No longer foreigners, the people who live in the rest of the United Kingdom will always be friends and neighbours to me. Let us make sure that we continue to refer to them in that way. That is what the English people want, too. An Ipsos MORI poll showed that 64% of English people believe that there will still be a common bond with Scotland following a decisive vote in the Scottish referendum. That is great: it demonstrates that the ties across these islands will endure and strengthen following Scotland’s independence.
	There are deeply held views and opinions, but let us make sure that the debate we are about to have is as respectful as possible. People are friends and neighbours in the House, and we are friends and neighbours across the country; let us continue to refer to each other as that. Let us not have people described as foreigners, and let us please not go anywhere near border patrols or border posts. It does no credit to the debate.

Anas Sarwar: No one on the Labour Benches used the words “foreigners” or “border controls”. The hon. Gentleman rightly says that we should respect each other as neighbours and friends in Scotland and in England. I hope the same principle applies Scot to Scot.

Pete Wishart: That is probably the most important point the hon. Gentleman has made. It is the key; we have to ensure that we refer to everybody in as friendly a
	way as possible. He was right in his new year statement: respect is the key element as we go forward, and I hope that Labour Members in this House who still have a contribution to make will respect that.
	It is fantastic. The Scottish Parliament will deliver a referendum to the highest standard—a referendum that not just the people of Scotland but people throughout the United Kingdom will be proud of. It will be a model of transparency, fairness and propriety, informed by consultation and independent expert advice. The rules will be fair for everything from finance to broadcasts and mailshots. The playing field has to be, and will be, completely level.

Jim McGovern: Will the Scottish Government adhere to the independent expert advice of the Electoral Commission?

Pete Wishart: We do not know yet what the commission has to say. We will find out. The standards of the Scottish Parliament on these issues will be exactly the same as those of this House. During the Scotland Bill, the Electoral Commission was given the task of testing the question and making sure the rules were fair. If I can find the quote, its advice to the House might help the hon. Gentleman. The commission conceded that it is for elected parliamentarians to decide. I have often heard Labour and Conservative Members say that the Electoral Commission advises, elected Members decide. It happens in this House and it will happen in the Scottish Parliament.

Anas Sarwar: rose—

Pete Wishart: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
	We will have a gold standard referendum. It will be to the highest possible standards—a referendum we can all be proud of. Yes, of course the Electoral Commission has to play a role; it is probably the most important role in firming up the referendum, but it is right that directly elected Members of Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament decide on the way forward. It happens in this House and it is exactly what will happen in the Scottish Parliament. There will be no difference in that respect.
	One of the most exciting things for me is the prospect that the Edinburgh agreement and the section 30 order will allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum. Members have probably heard me speak about that before. It is absolutely fantastic that those with the biggest stake in Scotland’s future will have the opportunity to participate in probably the biggest electoral event in their life. It is immensely exciting and we are all looking forward to it. I know that some Conservatives do not like the idea, but I think there is rough consensus among the Scottish political community—perhaps grudging among my Labour friends—that it is right for 16 and 17-year-olds to have the vote.
	Next week, there is a Backbench Business debate on that issue, and I am sure that a number of my colleagues will be rushing to back the Scottish Government and the whole process of ensuring that 16 and 17-year-olds get the vote.

Eleanor Laing: If the hon. Gentleman really believes that it is right to widen the franchise to all those who have a stake in Scotland’s future, such as 16 and 17-year-olds, why will he not accept that people who temporarily do not happen to live in Scotland have a stake in its future too and should have a vote in the referendum?

Pete Wishart: I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady said about the issue in her contribution. Yes, there is a huge debate about who does, and does not, have the opportunity to vote in Scotland’s referendum, which is right and proper. However, the line has to be drawn somewhere.
	Government Ministers, Labour spokespeople, members of the Scottish Government and MSPs have agreed that the fairest way to proceed is to have a franchise that is all about the people who live and work in Scotland. To try any other technical assessment or way of doing these things would lead to incredible difficulties and problems. I am happy and relaxed about the position. There will always be losers in these things, which I accept, but I think that both Governments and both big parties in the House agree that this is the way forward. There is no other way to do it.
	It is unfortunate that some Scots feel disfranchised, but there will always be winners and losers when it comes to drawing up lists of people who can participate in such a referendum. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Lady is excited about the prospect of the youngest Scots—perhaps her nieces and nephews—having the opportunity to participate in a decision on their future. I can see that she is smiling, and agrees that it is a fantastic, transformative event, and an opportunity for the youngest participants in our democracy. I visit schools, like most Members in the Chamber, and in my 12 years as a Member of the House I have detected an increasing interest in Scottish politics among our young people. It is fantastic that they will be offered the most important choice in the referendum that they will ever have in their young lives.
	Today marks the end of the involvement and role of the House in the formal process of Scotland’s referendum. It is all over; it is finished. We are grateful for the contributions from hon. Members, and we always enjoy hearing their views. Everybody in Scotland has given serious attention to their considered opinions, particularly from Conservative friends—people in Scotland are hanging on their every word. I hope that hon. Members across the House remain engaged with the debate.

Anas Sarwar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Pete Wishart: No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
	I do not think that MSPs can ever get enough of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing). Her speeches should be circulated, to make sure that her considered views are seen by other Members. Today, however, is the last day on which there is a formal role in the independence referendum for Members of the House of Commons, which is right and proper. Of course it is a matter for the Scottish people through their directly elected representatives in the Scottish Parliament. This is what the Scottish national party was elected to deliver, and it would be disingenuous if we did not do so.
	It is great that that is now a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Select Committees are still looking at the issue, but they are handicapped by the fact that they all approach it from a Unionist persuasion, so I do not know how useful they are. They all take a strident, antagonistic attitude towards Scottish independence, but some of them are more valuable than others. May I say ever so gently to the Members who serve on them that Select Committees that cannot bring themselves to say the word “independence” will probably be treated with less respect than others? Yes, we are interested in their views, which are noted, but for goodness’ sake let us try to make sure that we talk about independence. There are no separate countries in the world. If Scotland secures its independence, are these people trying to tell me that we will be the first separate country in the world? What a ridiculous proposition. The proposition to my Labour friends is independence: that is what ordinary countries try to secure and achieve, and that is what we will achieve in the autumn of 2014.
	Today marks the end of the formal role of this place in the whole debate about Scotland’s referendum. We will continue to be interested in hon. Members’ views, and I hope that they remain engaged with the issue and offer their opinion to Scottish parliamentarians, but they should note that today is the last day that this place will have a formal role in the matter. We now move on to the substance of the debate. The process ends with the passing of the order. The people of Scotland will therefore face two propositions: they can have an independent Scotland that is prosperous and successful, which reflects Scottish values of fairness and opportunity, and promotes equality and social cohesion; a Scotland with a new place in the world; an independent nation participating fully in the community of nations. Or there could be a no vote: more Tory austerity; government that we no longer vote for; a UK—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying again, although I know that he did not want to do so. I also know that he did not want to abuse the amount of time that he has been given, and he will recognise that he has taken far more time than he ought. There are three more Members who wish to speak, and as he has friends in all parts of the House, he will not want to deny them the opportunity to speak.

Pete Wishart: We have had a six-hour debate and one side in the debate has had maybe half an hour of that, so with due respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, we have—

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I know the hon. Gentleman is not questioning my ruling. I have come into the Chair. I said to everybody that I wanted to try to share out the time evenly and I did not want anybody to take advantage of that. I know the hon. Gentleman would never dream of doing that. All I am saying is that I am sure he is coming towards the end. He is not going to get us into a debate on the referendum. I am sure he is about to wind up.

Pete Wishart: It is good that we get more than 10 minutes today to put the case for the independence side of the debate, but yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am winding up. Thank you very much for that.
	We pass the order today, a section 30 order, based on the Edinburgh agreement. Based on two Governments working together, we now go into the debate side of things. This is what I and my hon. Friends have been waiting for all our political lives. We relish a fight. We know what Scotland will decide in 2014. It will vote yes to independence and yes to full nationhood.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Three more speakers. Ten minutes each. I call Mr Michael McCann.

Michael McCann: That must be the first time in the history of Parliament that there have been 21 minutes of non sequiturs in a single speech. The questions that were asked during the debate were not answered by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) at any point. For the first 10 or 11 minutes, I did not know what was going on.
	I support the order to devolve to the Scottish Parliament the ability to hold a referendum on whether Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom or becomes a separate nation. The most important words used by the Secretary of State at the start of the debate were that the referendum must be legal, fair and decisive. On the referendum’s legality and fairness, the House must recognise that once we pass the order today, that responsibility passes to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. Most importantly, responsibility for the decisiveness element passes to the Scottish people. It is important that we recognise that.
	Nobody can take away the SNP’s victory in 2011. In political terms it was truly stunning, but that victory was not about Scotland’s constitutional future. It was about party politics. Perhaps in this month of January, when we will celebrate our national bard, I should remind Members from the Scottish National party of some words from “Tam o’Shanter”:
	“But pleasures are like poppies spread—
	You seize the flow’r, its bloom is shed;
	Or like the snow falls in the river—
	A moment white—then melts for ever.”
	That is what happens when fighting political campaigns. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose; but you do not stay in power for ever.
	All that changed because the SNP changed its political colours. Previously it was a political chameleon, taking on the colour of the territory it was fighting in. In 2007, it changed to a centre-left agenda, and continued that in 2011. In a perfect storm the SNP won a truly outstanding result in the 2011 elections, winning an outright majority in the Scottish Parliament. The party that places a separate Scottish state in big letters and big bright lights—that is the reason for its existence—then received the holy grail, a route map to a referendum on Scottish separation. The SNP has won the right to a referendum and we should not begrudge it that right because of its victory in 2011.
	This is an opportunity to put the issue to bed not just for a generation, as the First Minister of Scotland wants, but for many, many generations. We should bear it in mind that the last time the issue was decided was 306 years ago come this May. It is my overwhelming desire that the fruits of democracy are plucked from the
	tree that was given to us in the result in 2011. If it were up to me, we would do it much sooner than the proposed date of autumn 2014.
	However, many speakers in the debate have made the important point that we all share some trepidation about the motivation of the people who will receive the power if the order is passed. Some people once mused that devolution would see off Scottish nationalism for ever. Others thought that the voting system in Scotland was so cleverly devised that no single party would ever seize control, and certainly not the Scottish National party. How wrong can you get? Those are possibly two of the worst conclusions reached since Michael Fish said in October 1987:
	“Earlier on today, apparently, a woman rang the BBC and said she had heard that there was a hurricane on the way. Well, if you’re watching, don't worry, there isn’t.”
	We have to remember that, until a few months ago, the SNP was still arguing that it had the power, without the amendment to schedule 5 going through this House, to hold a referendum. We also have to look at how it has used its power in the Scottish Parliament—this is a perfectly valid point—since it gained an overall majority in 2011. It has ruthlessly shut down debate in the Scottish Parliament and, unlike this place, where hon. and right hon. Members of whatever political hue are free and able to scrutinise the work of Government Departments on Select Committees, no such scrutiny is allowed in Scotland. For those reasons I am not filled with any great hope that the SNP will not manipulate or attempt to manipulate the referendum to favour its preferred result.
	I want to raise a new issue, which is perhaps unusual at this point in the debate. I hope that you will bear with me, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it is an important issue about the civil service. I intervened earlier on my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and made the point that the mechanics will be handled by the civil service. Civil service powers have not been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but they will play a crucial role.
	I hope that the Secretary of State will address two elements. First, questions have been asked about the permanent secretary and how he behaves towards the SNP Government. We have to be assured that the people at the top of the civil service in Scotland can give truth to power, and we must know that, if questions are raised about the legality or fairness of certain decisions, the civil service will stand up to its political masters. Secondly, there are 30,000 UK public servants in Scotland working for a range of different Government Departments. They have to have the ability to express their views in this debate and be free to speak. I would therefore welcome an assurance from the Secretary of State that those individuals will have that freedom and that it will not impinge on their contracts of employment, under which they have to be impartial in their duties as civil servants. I hope that the Under-Secretary will touch on those two points when he responds to the debate.
	In conclusion—I hope you recognise, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have cut back my speech substantially—it is important for the public, particularly the Scottish public, to recognise that all that this order does is devolve the power for the next stage of this debate to the Scottish Parliament. The date, the actual question and the rules of the referendum, including the financial rules, which have been discussed by a number of hon. and right hon.
	Members, will all be decided by the Scottish Parliament, which is dominated by an SNP majority. The eyes of Scotland, the United Kingdom and, indeed, the world will be on them—do not let us down.

Cathy Jamieson: I have sat through the debate and listened intently. I have resisted the temptation—I have not risen to the bait—to jump up and intervene, although my patience was tested by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). To start off with an attack on Labour Members and then complain about people heckling is not the kind of behaviour that those looking from outside want to see. I think that the majority of people in Scotland—who would have been watching this debate had they not been following the Twitter feeds about, and taking more of an interest in, our new Scotland football manager—would have wanted to hear the much more positive tone that they would have expected when we in this House actually agree on a way forward.
	As someone who campaigned for a Scottish Parliament, I was and am proud to be part of the party that delivered the devolution settlement and the Scottish Parliament, and, indeed, to have served in it for some 12 years. During that time, I always believed that I had a responsibility not only to my own political party and, of course, to my constituents first and foremost, but to stand up for the interests of Scotland.
	In the context of some of the things that are going on in the Scottish Parliament under an SNP majority Government—something most of us thought we would never see—I must point out that it is rather ironic to see the legal and educational establishments in Scotland beginning to feel that the fundamental principle of the uniqueness of the Scottish legal and educational systems is being undermined by that Government. I do not want to dwell on that point, but I want to place the debate in context.
	This is an important debate, and it is right and proper that we should give the Scottish Parliament this responsibility to deal with the referendum. That is why I regret the tone adopted by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire. The people on the Labour side in the Scottish Parliament will take that responsibility seriously, but they have some concerns, as do the wider public. That is why it is important that the role of the Electoral Commission should be respected.
	I can understand that individual SNP Members might not agree with everything that the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), says. Irrespective of their personal feelings, however, he has an important role in chairing that Committee on behalf of everyone in the House, and it would have been courteous of them to listen to his speech and take up their points with him, rather than simply absenting themselves from that part of the debate.
	Just in case SNP Members missed it, I want to refer to one thing that the Chair of the Select Committee raised. He quoted from the Select Committee report, which said of the Scottish Government:
	“Despite agreeing to the impartial oversight of the Electoral Commission, it has itself refused to commit to be bound by the
	decisions of this neutral referee. It is hard to escape the suspicion that it is following the mantra of British cycling of the ‘aggregation of marginal gains’.”
	When the Chair of a Select Committee makes such a point about the importance of having a level playing field and having an independent referee from outside the political process to advise on the wording and the funding and to ensure fair play, it is incumbent on the Scottish Government not only to listen and “probably” consider the matter—as we have heard—but to give a clear commitment that they will abide by the Electoral Commission’s advice.
	In the past, I have been supportive of the idea of extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, notwithstanding the difficulties involved. I understand the concerns that have been expressed by people in my own party and others, but we now have the opportunity to allow young people in Scotland to vote on a matter of fundamental importance to their present situation as well as to their future. In order to do that, however, we must deal with all the technical aspects involved in drawing up the register and ensuring that everyone aged 16 and 17 is able to participate without any arbitrary cut-off points or problems. That needs to be done properly. When the section 30 order was first announced, I asked what work had been done on this aspect of the process. This will be a matter for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to take forward. It would have been helpful if we had been able to hear a bit more today about that positive work, rather than simply listening to attacks on Labour Members, especially those of us who have been supportive of that proposal.
	A number of Members have mentioned the need to build consensus. One reason why we were able to move so quickly between the general election in 1997 and the referendum on the Scottish Parliament in September of that year was that political consensus was built. I hope that, as we take this debate forward following the passing of the section 30 order, we will see another attempt to build such political consensus, rather than having to listen to more of the rather unfortunate language that has been used by some SNP Members this afternoon.
	This is not simply about a majority SNP Government pushing through what they want; it is about representing the people of Scotland. The SNP Government have to recognise that, although they won a majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament, that does not mean that they can state categorically that there is a majority in Scotland in favour of independence.
	Many people in my local area tell me that they voted SNP, which they of course had the right to do, but that they are concerned about the process of the referendum and want to be sure that it is fair and above board. They also tell me that they may not vote for independence because they are worried about the economic circumstances in Scotland and what might happen if Scotland were to separate from the rest of the UK. [Interruption.]
	I hear chuntering, to use a word that was used earlier, from many of the SNP Members. I am happy to debate the positive arguments for Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom with the SNP in a proper context at any stage. However—and I hope that SNP Members and the Scottish Government take this on board—I find it difficult to take that anyone who is seen to disagree with independence finds themselves subjected to cyber-warfare through the Twitter feeds; or, if they
	work in the voluntary or charitable sector, finds that they receive a phone call; or, if they are a business, finds that they do not get invited to the same circle of events. This point is fundamental to the way in which the debate has to be taken forward. I respect the fact that many people believe in an independent Scotland. I disagree with that view and have come to that conclusion after a great deal of consideration throughout my political life, but I do not accept that people who have a different opinion should not be able to voice it for fear of being on the wrong side of the Scottish Government and having to suffer the consequences. I plead with those on the SNP Benches to do what they can to ensure that this debate is taken forward positively.
	As I said earlier, it is important to meet what has been described as the “gold standard” in the wording of the question that is put to the Scottish people. I think that the Scottish people who are watching this debate want to know that every one of us is trying to do our best for the future of the country and our communities, and that we are not simply out to seek party political advantage. It is unfortunate that much of the debate has again focused on the misconceptions, misunderstandings, mis-speakings and lack of information—or sometimes the completely contradictory information—around the Scottish Government’s position, for example on the currency and on the EU. People are worried when the Scottish Government are unable to give a straight answer to a straight question. That is why I believe that we must have the Electoral Commission as the independent referee. We need it to ensure that the question is not only fair, but is seen to be fair.
	As many Members have said, it is vital that the outcome is accepted. Many people who did not agree with the setting up of the Scottish Parliament expressed their view in the run-up to the referendum, but none the less accepted the outcome and tried to make it work, including many people who sat on the Benches opposite me in Holyrood. That spirit of the different political parties trying to make an institution work has perhaps been lost over the past few years. It would be regrettable if that continued throughout the debate over the referendum.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few points this afternoon on behalf of my constituents, who have concerns about the process and want to see that it is fair, and about the future of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament is a precious institution, for which many of us fought long and hard. We must not see it undermined in this process. We are giving it an important responsibility and I trust that my colleagues there will do their best to live up to the expectations. However, I want to hear from the SNP in particular that it is prepared to play fair and to ensure that there is a level playing field throughout the process.

Fiona O'Donnell: I am very pleased, and do not in the least begrudge sitting for many hours, to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. This is a truly momentous moment and I pay credit, as others have done, to those who have been involved in negotiations to get us to the point at which the House—I hope this evening—can sign off a section 30 order and we can move on to the next phase.
	It is a pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) whose contribution had just the tone we want in this debate as we go forward. These issues are important to the Scottish people, and although there can be robust disagreement, they should be always considered in a tone of respect. I do not think there is anything worth while in life that justifies treating one’s fellow human beings badly.
	That takes me neatly to the contribution from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). Until then, the tone of the debate had been reasoned, restrained and respectful. His contribution, however, had a sour tone, and I do not even know whether he is aware of that. No other Member of his party consistently adopts such a tone in his contributions in the House and other places on the estate. I do not know whether his unpleasantness informs his politics, or his politics his unpleasantness, but he is rapidly becoming the Reverend I M Jolly of the SNP. It may surprise some people that we have managed to debate the section 30 order for so many hours, but so many elements of this issue are important. Significantly, we have spoken a lot today about the franchise. The hon. Gentleman thought that we were being downbeat and rubbishing it, and criticising or not trusting the Scottish Government, but it is not about that.
	I know that this challenge will be difficult and that it will not be possible to meet the aspirations of everyone who wants, through this order, to vote in the referendum. It is, however, important that people who are Scottish, and feel they are Scottish, know that the Parliament in Holyrood has done everything it can to make this a showcase for the world and the fair, exemplary example of a referendum that we all want to see.
	This referendum divides even my own family. My daughter lives in Scotland so that will be fine and she will have a vote, but I have three sons who were all born in England but consider themselves Scottish. One lives and works in Brussels and he will have a vote, but the ones in Gateshead and London will not. I do not know whether there is a solution, but we must at least acknowledge the issue. My sons still come home and often work in Scotland and this referendum will change their lives and that of my family for ever. Their not being able to vote would be a frustration and a disappointment and all we are doing today is urging the Scottish Parliament to do everything in its power to reach the aspirations of such people.
	I welcome the inclusion of 16 and 17-year-olds and would like them to be able to vote in every election in the United Kingdom. I am concerned, however, to ensure that all 16 and 17-year-olds have the right to vote and that no section is disfranchised. I remember the lessons of the poll tax. Some families were nervous about putting their young ones on to the electoral register because of that tax, and I wonder whether some parents—especially in poorer communities—might be nervous and concerned about the bedroom tax. This is not about talking down the SNP or the Scottish Parliament but about saying, “We are passing this over to you. Please make every effort to ensure that every 16 and 17-year-old has the chance to vote, and that we have the chance to engage with them throughout the debate.”
	The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire spoke about the warm relationship that Scotland would continue to have with the rest of the United Kingdom, post the referendum and whatever the outcome, yet he mocked Conservative Members for daring to contribute to the debate. I just wanted to say that he does not speak for the people of Scotland. The majority of us realise that there are four nations that stand tall and proud to make up this family of nations, each with its own individual identity, like a tree in a forest, while under the surface our roots are entwined.

Anas Sarwar: Poetry!

Fiona O'Donnell: Poetry in motion. That is a strength and a relationship that I believe binds these nations together.
	I also want to talk about the timing of the referendum. The order says that it can be any time before the end of next year, but no one seems to have mentioned the fact that we might not have a referendum. I do not think we should rule anything out when it comes to the Government in Holyrood. It may be that they find it inconvenient to have a referendum at this time and try to find a way out, but I hope we will see the process through, because it is time. I agree with the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) that it will not end there for the nationalists. They will not say, “Well, that’s it. It over—it never happened for Scotland”; it will carry on. However, it is different for those of us who believe in the family of nations. I do not think we will be calling for a referendum to take us back in five years’ time. That is perhaps the difference.
	I do not exaggerate, but whatever happens, the next morning a sizeable section of the Scottish nation will be devastated by the result. We will have to pull ourselves together. That is why the conduct of the election and the process leading up to it, including the powers that this order transfers to the Scottish Parliament, are so important: so that people can see that the process is fair and transparent. We should have the involvement of the Electoral Commission as an independent body—of course we do not know what it will say: that is because it is independent. It is important that we should seek the advice of a body with such experience—and whose advice no Government here have ever rejected—so that we have a question that is fair and does not lead to or prompt a response from the Scottish people.
	It is also important that, within the spending limits, the Scottish people should be allowed access to all the information they need to make a decision. I do not think it should surprise people that the SNP has called for the amount to be lower than what those of us in the Better Together campaign are calling for. Indeed, the boundaries between the Scottish Government and the Yes campaign are being blurred day by day. Last night we heard Blair Jenkins, the leader of the Yes campaign—the chief executive—announcing that the Scottish Government would be making various announcements in the lead-up to the White Paper. Why did that come from someone in the Yes campaign? That was an announcement for the Scottish Government. There is blurring and, at times, misuse, and we need to be vigilant about that.

Angus MacNeil: Whether or not Blair Jenkins said that last night, it has been known about for ages. It was hardly an announcement coming uniquely from Blair Jenkins. If I tell the hon. Lady that the Scottish Government will have 15 papers before the end of the year, is that an announcement from the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar? I am just saying it.

Fiona O'Donnell: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is a man—not him, but Blair Jenkins—who kept saying, “Oh, I’m not a politician,” but then he turns up on politics programmes and makes highly political comments. Let us not kid ourselves for one moment that this is someone who is independent or separate from the SNP.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) should not feel bad that he seems to have a problem in his relationship with the SNP. Let us remember that in the Yes campaign there has already been a trial separation between the SNP and the Scottish Greens. As I recall, there are only two of them in the Scottish Parliament, so the problem is less his and more that of the Scottish nationalists. It is about the way they do their politics.
	Let me draw my comments to a conclusion. We have had a good debate today. It has set the agenda; or rather, it did not “set the agenda”—that would be arrogant —but made some helpful suggestions to the Scottish Parliament about how the debate should be conducted. Although I very much hope that the outcome will be the right one, I also hope that we have a debate and a campaign that do not divide Scotland and Britain, because that would be in no one’s interests.

Gordon Banks: The spirit of consensus has been a key characteristic of today’s debate on the passing of this order. We support the order, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) has already said, and we support the fact that the Scottish people should be in the driving seat and making the decision. However, a huge of amount of debate needs to take place before the people of Scotland make the biggest decision on the constitutional future of our country since 1707. I pay thanks to the many groups and organisations that provide us with a number of briefings, such as the Law Society of Scotland.
	We have heard interesting and stunning contributions from Labour Members: my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) and for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell). I will take some of the issues they have raised today and explore them a little further.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West spoke in support of his own Scottish Affairs Committee report and argued for the need for losers’ consent in this process—an important point to make.
	He also argued that it is the responsibility of the losers to accept the result for a generation or more, as has been stated by the First Minister in the past. My hon. Friend brought to the debate the question of whether the SNP can be both player and referee, and spoke of the need for the Electoral Commission to be the only referee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central spoke about keeping his country together and about a fight. I tell him this: it will be a fight, but I will be standing shoulder to shoulder with him. Rightly, he stated that a yes vote in 2014 will last forever. He also highlighted that 45% of SNP voters do not support independence and that often the SNP’s actions do not match its rhetoric.
	My neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) exposed the antics of the SNP and spoke of the need to carry the referendum debate forward positively on all sides—such comments have been made by many hon. Members, but have not always been delivered by the words that followed. My right hon. Friend made the important point that, by our actions today, a great responsibility has now been placed on the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South spoke about how it was Scottish Labour that delivered devolution and improved it. He expressed concern over the SNP’s control of the Scottish Parliament, and its singular function in and out of Holyrood to deliver independence rather than to address issues, such as food bank queues in his constituency. He also asked whether we can trust the First Minister and said that the jury was out on the SNP Government’s ability to be fair—a view that I think is possibly shared by many Members on this side of the House.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) highlighted the concern that it will be damaging for Scotland if the days following the referendum are filled with rancour. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West said—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith alluded to the same fact—the losers need to accept the outcome of the referendum. He also called for the Electoral Commission to take the role of the referee in this process.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston reminded us that the Scottish constitutional future is really all about the future of the Scottish people. He was unconvinced that the nationalist majority in Holyrood would not be used to act in a partisan way. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow sought assurances on the role of the top civil servant in this process in Scotland and how the civil service must not be silenced for doing its job. I will come back to that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun called for a reasonable and respectful debate, and respect for the Electoral Commission’s role—a strand running through many contributions from Labour Members. She also referred to the lack of support for the commission coming from the SNP. The burden being passed to Holyrood is great. Our devolved Parliament must prepare a Bill that presents the people of Scotland with a clear choice: whether or not to separate from the rest of the UK. There can be no fudged question with undue bias. In the light of that, it is paramount that the
	Scottish Government pay heed to the commission’s recommendation. That argument has been well made by my hon. Friends.
	I want to pick up some more points made during the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West expanded on the need for a fair question and the fact that the Scottish Government must accept the commission’s view. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West again talked about the weasel words from the SNP over its biased question and how it had no reason not to accept the commission’s view. He also confirmed that no self-respecting polling organisation would ask such a question—no surprise there. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central said that voters must have a clear question, that the commission should decide on the question and that it should not be for politicians to decide. We should respect the role and independence of the commission. That way, the question will be seen as fair.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gordon Banks: If the hon. Gentleman can control his E numbers and sit down, he will have plenty of opportunity to get in later.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South expressed concern about attempts to sideline the commission on the issue of the question and challenged the SNP to accept the commission’s advice, but there were no takers at that point in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston also called for a question that was approved by the commission.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gordon Banks: The hon. Gentleman will have a contribution to make later, I am quite sure.
	The commission is extremely well respected, and no Government or Assembly within the UK have ever failed to reach agreement with it on such issues. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is wrong. The Deputy First Minister claims to hold the commission in high esteem. Why, then, can she not give an unequivocal assurance that the Scottish Government will implement its recommendations? Particularly given that the Scottish Government are, for the first time in the history of the Scottish Parliament, governing with a working majority, it is appropriate that extra care be taken to ensure that the process is open and transparent.
	The order states that the referendum must be held before the end of 2014. The Opposition, as well as our colleagues in Holyrood, had hoped that the Scottish Government would bring forward that date in order to end the uncertainty over Scotland’s constitutional future. Frankly, we could be forgiven for thinking that after 80 years the SNP would be ready to put this to the ultimate test—the test of the Scottish people. It is surprising that it is so reticent. Without doubt, it would be in Scotland’s best interests to have this decision made as soon as possible, but the Scottish Government appear prepared to take it to the wire. It is therefore essential that in that time we show the benefits of remaining in the most successful political and economic union the world has ever seen.
	Funding is another issue that has been addressed in the debate. My hon. Friends have made valid contributions on this issue, and I want to pick up on them now. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East raised the issue of a 1p spend for each voter in Scotland—and you know what you get when you spend a penny! My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West, however, said that to secure a respectable turnout and a clear decision we need to spend money. That was further amplified when he advised us of the turnouts in Quebec in 1980 of 85%, and in 1995 of 93.5%. He also spoke about the importance of the commission playing a continuing role, but he expressed his doubts about how the permanent secretary in Holyrood might be restricted in ensuring that the Scottish Government, in the regulated period, play a neutral role. We all share his concern.
	It is crucial that both sides of the argument are able to fund their campaigns effectively, but it should be clear that funding should not be rigged to benefit one side to the detriment of the other. To have a referendum on the future of Scotland within the UK, but with businesses and unions limited in their ability to campaign by imposing lower spending limits than the Electoral Commission recommended, and to have a referendum on the future of Scotland within the UK but with far lower spending limits for the umbrella campaign groups than was recommended by the Electoral Commission and that were in place for the Welsh referendum and the AV referendum: these will both be seen for what they are. In short, to have the Scottish Government as a referee and player will in itself be seen for what it is.
	Labour Members feel that the Electoral Commission is the most appropriate body to deal with these arrangements, and we are happy to be bound by its proposals. It is the body best placed to offer independent advice on such matters. We heard a contribution from my parliamentary neighbour the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) in answer to a question about whether the Scottish Government would accept the Electoral Commission’s advice. His answer was, “Yes, yes, probably.” I am prepared to sit down to allow him to intervene to take away the “probably” and leave the “yes, yes”. No takers? There’s a surprise.
	The Scottish Parliament is now ingrained within Scottish culture, and it has matured as a legislature. I believe that it is the feeling of this House that it is not for the Scottish Government in isolation to decide how to present the referendum to the people of Scotland. The Government must recognise that the people of Scotland deserve nothing less from their Government than an open, balanced and transparent referendum process. From this day forward, it will be unacceptable to the people of Scotland if the SNP uses its majority status in Holyrood to railroad through unfair outcomes on the question, funding and overseas donations. Indeed, on this matter, the First Minister could do worse than take the sound advice in last week’s report of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee.
	There is so much more to discuss, including the day, the extended length of the regulated period and the extension of the tariff to 16 to 18-year-olds. Let me say a word or two on this final matter before I finish my remarks. If 16 to 18-year-olds are to be included in the franchise, it must be all 16 to 18-year-olds, as my
	hon. Friends have argued in the debate—not just the attainers, which would be an unacceptable cop-out. The impact of the shift from household to individual voter registration, which will be going on at the same time, should also be recognised. My point to the Scottish Government, then, is: “So do it, yes; but do it right.”
	I visit schools in my constituency as often as I can. On Friday last week, I met a small group of sixth-form pupils in Alva academy. When I raised the issue of 16 to 18-year-olds voting, the merits of the idea were discussed. I was heartened to be told by one pupil that she was desperate to get the chance to vote: she wanted to vote, she was committed to vote, and she could not wait to go into the ballot box to show her support for Scotland within a strong United Kingdom.
	It is essential that Scotland’s future is decided by the Scottish people through a referendum made in Scotland. The future of Scotland is too important for any party to play games with, and I hope the Scottish Government will listen to this debate and understand that they must put any thoughts of their own individual ambitions aside and do what is best for the Scottish people.
	This must be a fair, legal and decisive referendum, and for this to take place the Scottish Government must accept the findings of the Electoral Commission. The burden of responsibility that has been placed on the Scottish Government is, as I have already said, great. They must show respect to the Scottish people, do right by the Scottish people and put any desire to create the rules for their own advantage to one side. To do anything less will damage Scotland and the Scottish Parliament’s international standing, which would be intolerable.
	The eyes of the world are watching Scotland and we have a right to expect the Scottish Government to act in the best interests of Scotland in providing a fair and transparent referendum process. The First Minister can do this, or his Westminster colleagues can do it here today. It is simple: agree to accept the proposals of the independent electoral expert in the UK—the Electoral Commission. This is the standard that I believe the people of Scotland have set for the Scottish Government, and they cannot be allowed to fall short of it.

David Mundell: We have had a full and wide-ranging debate. I never doubted that we could fill six and a half hours with contributions from across the Chamber, representing parties across the political spectrum and, importantly, constituencies across the United Kingdom.
	At Scotland Office questions, I said that I am never surprised by the actions of the Scottish National party, but I must admit that I was surprised that SNP Members left their Benches empty for a significant part of today’s debate, and did not listen to the contributions and views of others, even if they did not agree with them. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) started the debate well for the SNP with what could almost be described as a statesmanlike contribution. However, the SNP must recognise that the tone and behaviour of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and the somewhat erratic behaviour of the Member representing the Western Isles lead people to have concerns about how the SNP majority in the Scottish Parliament will take the matter forward.
	The order that we are debating today is of the utmost constitutional significance. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) set exactly the right tone in his contribution on the context of the debate and the political history of Scotland that has led us to this point. The order paves the way for a legal, fair and decisive referendum that will determine Scotland’s future: whether we will be a Scotland that affirms its commitment to this, our United Kingdom, or whether we will be a Scotland that chooses to leave the greatest political, economic and social union that has ever existed. I make no apology for putting my point of view strongly and passionately in this debate, and it is clear that others will also do so. Although we are discussing process today—the legal mechanism to provide the Scottish Parliament with the power to bring forward a referendum Bill—that process will result in the most important decision that people in Scotland will ever be asked to take. Separation will not be for Christmas 2014, but for ever. That is why the process has been debated so comprehensively, not just in this House but between the Governments in the run-up to the Edinburgh agreement, and will continue to be debated by parties in the Scottish Parliament.
	To answer an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), and to refute directly some of the comments of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, Members of this Parliament will still have a role in that debate and will be entitled to contribute to it. The issues can still be debated in this House of Commons and the other place. Our electorate in Scotland would expect nothing else.
	The order ensures that the referendum will be legal, and that is why we are delivering the section 30 order. I am pleased that the Scottish Government now recognise the importance of doing that. The referendum must be fair—and it must be seen to be fair, as many Members have said. At the end of the process, no side can be allowed to cry foul—a point that the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) made in his usual colourful way. The debate must be conducted on a basis of well established principles, which have applied to referendums held across the United Kingdom, by successive UK Governments, and which both the Scottish Government and the UK Government put their names to when they signed the Edinburgh agreement last October. The process must produce a decisive result.
	Businesses up and down Scotland tell me that they want to get the issue resolved once and for all. They want to get on with concentrating on rebuilding Scotland's economy, to focus on jobs, housing, and people’s real concerns. The Government want that too, but we accept that following the May 2011 election for the Scottish Parliament, the question of independence cannot be ignored. We must address the issue, and we must answer the question: do we want to stay in the United Kingdom or do we want to leave it for ever?
	The order will ensure that the referendum can take place. As the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, it will ensure that the referendum contains a single question about independence, and that there will be no second question or second referendum to cloud the issue or prevent a clear result. It will ensure that the referendum can be held no later than the end of 2014, and it will ensure that important aspects of normal
	referendum law that would otherwise be outside the Scottish Parliament’s competence can be included in the referendum Bill, such as the rules governing campaign broadcasts and mail-shots. It will also make the Scottish Government and Parliament responsible for setting the detailed rules and regulations governing the referendum. That is an important responsibility, and, as more than one Member has observed, one to which the world will pay close attention. The Deputy First Minister said that the highest international standards would apply to the referendum, and we shall all be holding her to account.
	The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who has already played and, I believe, will continue to play an important and increasingly decisive role in the forthcoming campaign, pointed out that the Scottish Government would have to respond to the advice of the Electoral Commission on the wording of the question and the setting of the various spending limits for the referendum campaign. I look forward to hearing the Scottish Government’s rationale for the spending limits that they have devised. Apart from the argument that people do not like money to be spent during elections, I have heard no rationale that challenges the established limits set by the Electoral Commission. It is important that we, and all who will participate in the referendum, understand the reasons for the proposed financial limits.
	If the Scottish Government choose not to accept the Electoral Commission’s advice, they will have to justify their decision. As a number of Members have pointed out, the UK Government’s position is clear: they have never failed to accept Electoral Commission advice on a referendum question. The Scottish Government will also have to specify the franchise for the referendum, and if they choose to extend it to 16 and 17-year-olds, they will have to answer the important questions about data protection and access to the register for information relating to minors to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) referred. In turn, it will be for the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise the Scottish Government’s legislation. It will have to examine all the proposals carefully.
	Members have expressed concern about the current operation of the Scottish Parliament. Like the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), I was once a Member of the Scottish Parliament. At that time, when Labour was in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and had a majority in the Parliament, it was always members of the Scottish National party who feared that their views might not be given due weight because there was a majority Government. I expect them to behave now as they behaved then in speaking up for minority views and ensuring that they are heard in the Scottish Parliament. I want them to make us confident that the Bill will be debated in a way that takes account of the views of all the people of Scotland. However, I myself am confident that my colleagues, Opposition Members and our Liberal Democrat coalition partners will be able to hold the SNP Government to account as the Bill is debated, in order to ensure that the referendum is legal, fair and decisive.
	The memorandum of agreement signed by the Prime Minister, the First Minister, the Secretary of State and the Deputy First Minister on 15 October was an important first step. That was an important moment not just
	because of the agreement that had been reached, but because of the very public commitment given by Scotland’s two Governments to ensure that the referendum would meet the very highest standards, and that party politics and passions on both sides of the debate would not intervene in the establishment of a legitimate and fair process. It will be for both sides to stand by and live up to the agreement, and the UK Government give that commitment unreservedly.
	There are clearly strong feelings in the House about 16 and 17-year-olds having a vote. As has been said, there will be a debate in Backbench Business Committee time next week, when Members will be able to discuss the topic in more depth. I believe any decision by the Scottish Government to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote will not achieve a partisan objective, as I am confident that when the votes are counted we will see that support for remaining an integral part of our United Kingdom comes from young and old alike.

Fiona O'Donnell: Does the Minister share my pleasure in the latest poll result, which included 16 and 17-year-olds and showed that the Better Together campaign currently has a 20-point lead?

David Mundell: I was very pleased to see that, but I am not complacent and all of us who support Scotland’s remaining part of the United Kingdom must get out and about in Scotland, under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West, and make sure we get our message to all parts of Scotland.
	The hon. Lady made a point about 16 and 17-year-old sons and daughters of servicemen. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) and others stressed the need to allow our servicemen and women and their partners to vote, and there are procedures in place for that, but there are no procedures for their 16 and 17-year-old children. The Scottish Government must address that matter.
	There has been much consideration of the Electoral Commission, and all Members who spoke about it—apart, perhaps, from those on the Scottish National party Benches—made it clear that they would accept the views of the Electoral Commission, even if it did not adopt their party’s position on the referendum question and funding. We should all welcome the fact that under this agreement the Electoral Commission will play a role, because only a few months ago the Scottish Government did not wish the Electoral Commission to play any part in the referendum, and wished instead to set up their own electoral commission.
	To those who asked what would happen if the Scottish Government did not follow the advice of the Electoral Commission, I say this: the people of Scotland will not take kindly to being played for a fool. Public trust is a precious commodity and, as the First Minister discovered following his recent comments on the EU, it can be quickly lost. I say to Alex Salmond, “Ignore the advice of the Electoral Commission at your peril.”
	We have not heard about process alone in this debate. We have also heard about why this order matters. It matters because people want to get on with the real debate. Not only politicians, but ordinary people in Scotland, and each and every one of us who will be asked to cast a vote, want to hear about the real issues.
	It is perfectly legitimate for the UK Government to set out Scotland’s current position within our United Kingdom in a series of papers, which we will do this year. The hon. Member representing the Western Isles tells us we will have 15 papers from the Scottish Government. We look forward to that, but I hope they shed more light than anything we have heard from them so far.
	The agreement reached between the UK and Scottish Governments will ensure that a referendum on Scottish independence can take place. The section 30 order we have debated today ensures that there will be a single-question referendum on independence before the end of 2014. The memorandum of understanding ensures that the referendum will be based on the principles set out for referendums held across the UK. Together, the order and the memorandum mean that we can have a referendum that is legal, fair and decisive. I believe we are better together in the United Kingdom than we would ever be apart, and I commend the order to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 22 October 2012, be approved.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Bodies

That the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of the Railway Heritage Committee) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 29 October 2012, be approved.—(Mr Evennett.)
	Question agreed to.

REMPLOY MARINE FIFE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Evennett.)

Gordon Brown: I rise on behalf of myself, my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy), and, I believe, the whole communities of the county of Fife to urge the Government to save the jobs, the work programme and the marine business of the Remploy factories in Leven and Cowdenbeath in Fife. The two factories, set up in 1948, have been part of the industrial fabric of Fife for six decades. These factories, like those in Dundee, which is represented here today, Stirling and other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom, have trained and employed thousands of workers with disabilities over the past 60 years, who have found confidence from working in these units. As I will show in a minute, these factories in Fife have an order book and an established product that people want to buy. Indeed, the order book could be rapidly extended in the right circumstances and, as I will also show, two prospective buyers have indicated to me and to my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes and for Dunfermline and West Fife that they would be interested in purchasing the factories.
	I am pleased that the Secretary of State, as well as the Minister, is here this evening. These factories cannot be expected, in current circumstances, to be able to move from making a loss of £1.6 million two years ago and a prospective loss of £800,000 this year, to overnight financial viability under the Government’s proposals, even with the subsidy that is on offer for a short time. I want to show the Government why they have to be more flexible in ensuring that jobs that can be saved and should be saved are actually saved, and that these privatisations do not become either the liquidations of factories in Leven and Cowdenbeath, as has happened in so many other parts of the country, or the decimations of the work force. They also need to ensure that that does not happen at one of the most difficult economic times and in circumstances where the most vulnerable workers need our support.
	We could talk about the general history and the policies being applied to Remploy, but I want to talk specifically about Fife, and about Leven and Cowdenbeath in particular. I wish to suggest that the Secretary of State and his Minister join a meeting with the Scottish Government and the council of Fife; this should be a tripartite group that works together to devise a plan that gives financial viability over a period of months to these factories, which we accept the Government are determined to sell on but which, in my view, could be saved.
	Why do I say that? I do so because the assets of the two factories, which I have known for 30 years, are not just a loyal, dedicated and committed work force, who have made enormous sacrifices over the past year—the wage bill has been cut by 30% from £1.6 million to £1.1 million—but a product that is well established across the world as one of the most successful and sophisticated products available for marine safety. The factories are producing 30,000 of these garments each year, and I am told that they could easily move to
	40,000, an increase of more than 25% or 30%. That is easily achievable in the existing factories. The design is selling not just in this continent, but worldwide and there is a market that I know can be extended over time.
	Of course, the assets are not only physical assets—the ability to produce a large number of goods—but that of our having managed to approach two prospective buyers who are interested, in certain circumstances, in purchasing the factories and who would be prepared, if the conditions were right, to take over the factories and ensure that, after a short period, they are viable.
	What is the problem that has to be solved? It is clearly this: the financial viability of these factories is incredibly difficult in the current circumstances, given that they have had losses of £1.6 million and, we expect, will lose about £800,000 this year—they have halved their losses, but they are still substantial losses for two small factories—and given that they have fixed costs as well as overheads and raw materials that mean that the input costs are very high indeed. Rents and rates are £57,000 or so and they pay £200,000 in central administration costs, which could be reduced but not entirely eliminated, as that figure covers insurance, payroll and a number of unavoidable administrative items. They need to buy in materials, obviously, at a major cost of £800,000 for the factory. That cost can be reduced significantly over the next few years, but it will not be reduced overnight unless we can take extraordinary action.
	We have a product that people want to buy, a market that could be expanded, a sophisticated good that is world leading and an order book that is full—of course, the buyers would be prepared even now to extend the orders beyond the date they have been given—but the costs have historically been high and so, before even a penny is paid in wages, the factories are having to fork out more money than the sales revenues they receive from their goods. That is the problem we have to address.
	Of course, the terms on which the Government will sell the two factories allows a buyer to come in and offer less than £1.2 million, which will be the cost of redundancy. It is possible that someone could take the factory off the Government’s hands and be paid about £1 million to do that. The problem, however, is that that redundancy cost might at some time have to be paid out and no responsible person would tell the buyer that they should not safeguard against the possibility that the redundancy costs will have to be paid. We must come up with something better.
	I say to the Minister and the Secretary of State that the £6,400 subsidy that is on offer for three years—an average of about £2,000 a year, although it is about £4,000 in the first year—cannot overnight eliminate losses that were more than £20,000 per employee two years ago and are probably about £12,000, £13,000 or £14,000 per employee at the moment. The idea that a subsidy that averages £2,000 can eliminate the shortfall overnight is impossible. Today, I talked to the Minister in the Scottish Parliament, Mr Fergus Ewing, about what he can do to help. My view, and that of my colleagues and Fife council, which has also been involved, is that there is a way forward for a viable product, that the Government should try to make these two factories work and that they need to give them the time that is necessary to achieve viability. The employment support that should be on offer must be greater in this case than
	the average of £2,000 a year. That is simply inadequate to bridge the gap between the current losses and the financial viability that is obtainable.
	The Scottish Parliament is prepared to pay £5,000 per disabled employee over a period of 18 months. That would make a difference and I welcome it. I know that Fife council is prepared to do more, because it has an employment fund to help people secure jobs. If we are to save these two factories, which I have known for 30 years and which do spectacularly good work, we need the Government, the Scottish Administration and Fife council to come together. I urge the Minister to consider this proposition.

Jim McGovern: I have a Remploy factory in my constituency and we have set up an action group composed of MPs, MSPs, elected local councillors and so on. May I urge my right hon. Friend to use his good offices to ask Fife council to contact Dundee council to see whether we can work together to form some sort of co-ordinated rescue package?

Gordon Brown: Of course. The cutting equipment that is necessary for the raw materials that produce the manufactured goods in Fife is in Dundee. If a rescue is going to work, there must be some relationship between what happens in Leven and Cowdenbeath and in Dundee. We will follow up my hon. Friend’s suggestion about a meeting between Fife and Dundee.
	I urge the Government to agree to hold a meeting, preferably in Fife, with representatives of the Government, the Scottish Administration, who have agreed that they will attend such a meeting, and Fife council, who will be there, to see whether the combination of what is on offer in employment support can achieve the financial viability over a short period of time that is essential if this product is to be produced in Britain. It will be sold and made somewhere, so the only question is whether it will be produced in Britain and not, as is likely, in Asia or elsewhere in the world.
	The price of failure is that 50 or more Remploy factories will move from privatisation to liquidation. If they do not move to liquidation, it will mean the decimation of the work force. I know that large numbers of people employed in Fife will never work again, despite the employment support that is available. We will be throwing away the opportunity to make a viable product, which with help to make it financially viable is one that people will be prepared to buy not just in this country but around the world.

Eilidh Whiteford: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing the issue to the House. I highlight not just the £5,000 the Scottish Government have committed over and above the support from the Department for Work and Pensions, but also the support through Scottish Enterprise for potential bidders. There could be a whole package of measures if people work together.

Gordon Brown: I hope there is financial support from Scottish Enterprise. I have not yet seen it. An 18-month subsidy will not be adequate to bridge the gap between the losses incurred at the moment and financial viability.
	The price of failure is that large numbers of people will lose their jobs, but success could be achieved by all the parties working together—the UK Government, the Scottish Administration and the Labour-led council. That could mean that at least two of the units that at the moment most people would say are more likely to fail than succeed could be brought into viability to extend their output and create more jobs in a community that desperately needs them. I hope that the Minister will also listen to my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes and for Dunfermline and West Fife.

Lindsay Roy: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) on securing this vital debate. I fully endorse the thrust of his argument and commend his analysis of the key issues that face us in securing Remploy’s survival and possible viability.
	I plan to underpin the case for a more flexible, generous and co-ordinated approach in the transition to financial viability by providing some additional detail. The Fife work force provide outstanding service, well above and beyond the call of duty. They are not shirkers. Remploy Marine’s order book is full. As my colleague said, their lifejackets meet international standards; they go to places such as Norway, Denmark and the USA. They are at the forefront of the manufacturing we want to retain in this country.
	The employees take pride in their work, and are making a significant contribution to wealth creation. Through their initiative and enterprise, they have cut their deficit in half, as we would expect from a work force so dedicated to continued employment. They have an entrepreneurial spirit. There is a full order book. The workers want to boost our diminishing manufacturing base and extend our overseas market. They remain determined to succeed. It is a golden opportunity.
	In an authoritative report, Scottish Enterprise states that
	“high growth rates are forecast, despite the underdeveloped sales channel.”
	Nearly all the Fife production goes to one distributor, who makes a healthy profit from the Remploy brand. As I said, the export market is extensive, and much more could be achieved through diversification.
	As my right hon. Friend said, a one size approach does not fit all. The Government’s support package is entirely inappropriate. Remploy Marine has real strengths and potential viability, given the right support package. That is why we want joint working and a co-ordinated approach, with effective leadership, between the Scottish Government, the UK Government, Fife council and any other important partners.

William Bain: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) for securing the debate.
	Does my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes recall that when he was elected in 2008 the unemployment rate for disabled people stood at 9%, whereas now it is 12.3%? Is there not a duty to more than half a million disabled people who are out of work for every tier of government to do everything possible to help save those jobs?

Lindsay Roy: Absolutely. I am very grateful for that contribution. That is entirely the case that we are making. We want to make sure that all parties concerned do everything they can to support the disabled and disadvantaged in our community, as that is a hallmark of a civilised society.
	A viable rescue package is possible, whether it is an employee buy-out, a social enterprise or a private sector purchase. In my view, the proposals are rushed and, ironically, represent a dramatic withdrawal of life support to a group of people who have been life savers for years. An option must remain on the table for an enhanced package for this internationally renowned product. A company such as Remploy Marine, with a substantial number of disabled people, remains a viable, highly competitive option but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath said, that cannot be achieved overnight. There are at least two potential buyers, who need all the support that they can get.
	At Leven, we have been told that the subsidy is £13,000 a head, but in terms of best value, the Government have been unable to quantify the increased benefits costs if people are made unemployed, nor do we have details of the redundancy payments. Furthermore, we do not know the care and health costs that often result when people become unemployed.
	This year, the Leven factory engaged 76 youngsters on work experience placements at no cost to the Government, so there is an added value component. It is my contention that we do not have an accurate balance sheet. With such a small percentage of workers in employment after the July closures, we must do everything that we can together, and there is genuine optimism that we can save the factories in Cowdenbeath and Leven. Like my right hon. Friend, I can vouch for the community spirit and the wholesale backing of the Fife community for these ventures. The support is overwhelming and it is cross-party.
	I urge the Government to take a fresh look at the issue, to consider a co-ordinated approach with various partners, and to take this seriously, as I am sure they will. We have a collective duty to reduce the subsidy per individual, and a collective obligation to maximise employment for disabled people. That need not be done by disbanding a potentially viable business. Where there is a collective will, there is a way, and I am confident that with flexibility, good will, effective leadership and co-ordination a successful outcome can be achieved. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and I have requested an urgent meeting with the Minister, and I trust that she will accede to our request, because by working together we can make a real difference and secure a viable outcome.

Thomas Docherty: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) not just on securing this important debate but on the leadership that he has shown in Fife. We are heartened to see so many Members across the House—and people in the Press Gallery—taking a keen interest in the affairs of Fife, and it will be heartening to all our constituents to
	know that the county of Fife has such a warm place in the hearts of Members from all over the United Kingdom who are here today.
	I am conscious of the need to allow the Minister adequate time to address the issue, so I shall be brief. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) said, we will shortly meet the Minister to hold a more detailed discussion, but I should like to pose three specific questions on which she might provide information tonight. She will know the quality of the product and the fact that it is sold across the world. On the seven seas, one can find a product that is made in Fife. Will she tell the House what discussions she intends to have, or has already had, with the Ministry of Defence about what more can be done to encourage the Royal Navy to purchase the product? Will she say what productive discussions she has been able to have with the Scottish Government about how we can all work together and how they can be encouraged to improve further, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath said, their offer to support the factories? Does she hope to have an opportunity to visit either factory, or both factories, in the near future so that she can meet the work force face to face and see the excellent product that they produce? I am conscious of the need to allow her adequate time to reply, so I shall conclude.

Esther McVey: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) on securing the debate. It is a pleasure to see him in his place for such an important debate. I am pleased, too, that the hon. Members for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) and for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) made their points. We must ensure that we have, as we have had this evening, a constructive and positive discussion so that we engage potential bidders for the site. We need people to come forward and to have that constructive dialogue to make sure that we do as much as we can for the employees of Remploy.
	I listened carefully to the issues raised during the debate. It is important that we put in context what is happening with the Remploy sites.

Jim McGovern: rose—

Esther McVey: We know that Remploy has faced an uncertain future for many years. The right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath will be well aware of what happened under the previous Government and under his leadership in 2008, when 29 factories were closed. A modernisation plan that was put in place failed. Unrealistic targets were set that were never achieved, and it cost £555 million.
	We must look at what this Government were left with, what had not worked before, what money—half a billion pounds—had been spent, and the situation now. A sixth of the entire budget for people with disability and their employment support was spent on 2,200 workers in loss-making Remploy sites, when we have 6.9 million disabled people of working age, all of whom we must help.

Stewart Hosie: Will the Minister give way?

Esther McVey: Let me put that into local context, then I will give way. There are 36 disabled employees at Cowdenbeath Remploy, yet there are 13,800 disabled people of working age in that constituency. In Leven there are 28 disabled staff at Remploy, yet there are 13,600 disabled people in the constituency. As a Government we must help all those disabled people, so we have protected the £320 million budget. What we are doing is helping all those people.

Stewart Hosie: I thank the Minister for giving way. This is not just about money. It is also about information. The right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) referred to the Dundee plant which cuts the fabric for the Fife plants. It may well be able to be saved and rise as a phoenix as a social enterprise, but Remploy has been unable or unwilling to provide the cost breakdown for the factory, making the development of a business plan impossible. That at least the hon. Lady can surely sort out.

Esther McVey: I am happy to engage with the hon. Gentleman. All the information is coming out in a staged process, as announced in December. All the bids are now coming forward, but I will help the hon. Gentleman with any information that he does not have.

Jim McGovern: Will the Minister give way?

Esther McVey: I am running out of time and there is lots to say, so on this occasion I will not give way.
	What is the vision for people with disabilities in the workplace? It is not our vision—we went out to disability experts and organisations and asked them to review the disability employment support and what we should be doing. They strongly supported the idea of moving away from the Remploy model. First and most importantly for the 21st century, they felt that we needed to get more disabled people into mainstream work. We need to get more disabled people into work because at present only 46% of working age disabled people are employed, compared with 76% of people who are not disabled. That means that there is a 30% gap in the employment rate and 2 million people out there whom we have to support.
	In conclusion, the vision is that the money that has been protected must follow the person and will not go to loss-making businesses. Let me put that in context. Although the factory at Leven generated about £1.2 million in revenue for 2011-12, it is running at a loss of more than a third of a million pounds per annum. The factory at Cowdenbeath generated just under £0.8 million, but it loses £0.5 million in revenue per annum. We could use all that money to help support people with disabilities into work. We can help each one with, on average, £3,200 to get into work.
	Of the 668,000 people with disabilities in Scotland, 152 work in a Remploy factory, but last year Remploy Employment Services got 1,700 people with similar disabilities into work. That is what we have to do—support all those people.
	To answer directly some of the questions that have been asked, the Remploy commercial process is designed to maximise the number of jobs for disabled people. We are seeking viable bids for its business, wherever possible, and getting the best offers we can to come forward. That is what it is about—supporting disabled people.
	Remploy is offering a three-year tapered wage subsidy of £6,400 per disabled person. The right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath has said that that subsidy is insufficient and has called for more money, but how did we come to that figure? We worked on past precedents. The right hon. Gentleman’s Government put wage subsidies in place for Workstep and we were guided by that, but the subsidy is worth more than that and other subsidies, such as the youth contract. We also have to strike a balance between the needs of Remploy’s disabled employees and those of other disabled employees, to whom we cannot offer that wage subsidy.
	Yes, we have to take into account support for the workers, but not in a way that affects the commercial market for other companies in the marketplace. Significantly increasing the subsidy and support provided to existing businesses risks the very test that the commercial process seeks to perform, in that a business must demonstrate that it can be viable without continued Government subsidy. We have given Government subsidy in the past and, as I have said, the past modernisation plan failed—£555 million was put into it over a continuous period and it did not work. Therefore, we have to look at what is feasible and viable and at how we can move forward.

Gordon Brown: rose—

Esther McVey: I have three minutes to go, but I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Gordon Brown: This debate is about Remploy Marine Fife and questions need to be answered about it. I have made a practical proposal that the Government, the Scottish Administration and Fife council should meet and look at flexible arrangements, so that the shortfall is eliminated as quickly as possible for a viable product. Will the Minister agree to those meetings?

Esther McVey: I will, indeed, agree to those meetings. In fact, I will be in Dundee on 4 February and I will be more than happy to meet Members.

Jim McGovern: Will the Minister give way?

Esther McVey: The hon. Gentleman knows that I will meet Members. I was in Scotland only a couple of months ago and, as I have said, we want to take part in direct discussions.
	In the closing minutes, I want to explain the work and support that we have put in place for ex-employees of Remploy through the people help and support package. We have put £8 million into that package, which was never done in 2008. I will remind hon. Members of what happened in 2008: 1,637 disabled people left Remploy, 1,006 took voluntary redundancy and 631 retired, because they were offered enhanced amounts of money to take retirement and redundancy. We have not done that. We have secured people in a significant number of jobs and helped them.

Jim McGovern: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Speaker: The Minister is not giving way, I am afraid.

Esther McVey: I will meet Members in Scotland and all the relevant parties.

Mr Speaker: Is the Minister giving way or has she concluded?

Esther McVey: I have concluded.

Mr Speaker: Very well.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.